Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Acronis vs Ghost

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:59:04 AM

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

I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?

More about : acronis ghost

Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:59:05 AM

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

I think that the biggest trade off between Ghost and Acronis True Image is
the ability to image within Windows. Acronis will do it, Ghost requires a
reboot into the DOS mode in order to function.

"_R" wrote:

> I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
> monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
> current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:59:06 AM

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

"usasma" <usasma@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CB19C22A-8BC1-4CEE-9231-40A9F9D62524@microsoft.com...
>
> "_R" wrote:
>
>> I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
>> monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
>> current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?
>>

>I think that the biggest trade off between Ghost and Acronis True Image
>is
> the ability to image within Windows. Acronis will do it, Ghost
> requires a
> reboot into the DOS mode in order to function.

Ghost 9.0 will image the disk within Windows.

--
William
Related resources
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:08:33 AM

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

Point me to the Acronis product you mentioned in the OP.
http://www.acronis.com/
Possibly this, but is not exactly what you quoted?
http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/diskdirec...

Suspect you're speaking of home use products vice corporate/server products.
But, not specified in the OP.

Suggest you rephrase the question, else, apples and oranges comparisons are
likely to result.

"_R" <_R@nomail.org> wrote in message
news:0kg4d1pqkdlhp3hebp0demgisigoaoalm2@4ax.com...
> I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
> monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
> current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:48:35 AM

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

"_R" <_R@nomail.org> wrote in message
news:0kg4d1pqkdlhp3hebp0demgisigoaoalm2@4ax.com...
>I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
> monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
> current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?

Both work fine. I have several customers who use Ghost 2003. They want a
brand name they recognize They have had no problemsthat couldn't be worked
around. I use True Image 8.0 myself and prefer it, mostly because I have
used it more and am used to it. True Image can't format a CD or DVD while
creating an image and needs 3rd party software installed to do this. Ghost
doesn't handle oddball partitions (like hidden recovery partitions) as well
as True Image when cloning drives.

Kerry
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:58:47 PM

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

"_R" <_R@nomail.org> wrote in message
news:0kg4d1pqkdlhp3hebp0demgisigoaoalm2@4ax.com...
>I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
> monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
> current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?

Norton's latest "Ghost" is a fiasco...err...combonation of Drive Image
(which they acquired from Partition Magic") and Ghost. I was a sworn Ghost
user until went the way of all their other bloatwware. I now refuse to use
anything Norton.

I can't really compare features since I no longer use Ghost. I've been using
Acronis TI for a few years now and have been quite happy. It does what it's
supposed to without the hassels and system corruption of Norton Ghost (the
last version I purchased was v9. I installed it, tried it for a few days and
promply returned it. 2000 was the last version I used that was decent).
Plus, Acronis puts out new builds on a regular basis and has great customer
support.

I also have another program many in this NG use called Bootit NG. I prefer
Acronis.

You can download a trail of Acronis.


mxh
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:58:48 PM

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

Using at least one appendage, the entity known in this space-time continuum
as "mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> revealed in news:kWuAe.44711$rb6.25053@lakeread07:

> You can download a trail of Acronis

You can also get free, full, online registration required, prior versions
from time to time on the coverdisks of UK magazine "PC Plus", by Future
Publications. They may also have copies for download on their website at
http://www.futurenet.com/pcplus/. I am v.happy with Acronis. It has saved
my bacon more than once

--
Will Cornish of Cardigan, UK - No nastier than you; No filthier than usual

To EMail Remove Anti-Spam Spaces: filthy-mcnasty @ btconnect.com
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:06:14 PM

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

"WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23zsFWVhhFHA.3568@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "usasma" <usasma@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CB19C22A-8BC1-4CEE-9231-40A9F9D62524@microsoft.com...
>>
>> "_R" wrote:
>>
>>> I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
>>> monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
>>> current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?
>>>
>
>>I think that the biggest trade off between Ghost and Acronis True Image is
>> the ability to image within Windows. Acronis will do it, Ghost requires
>> a
>> reboot into the DOS mode in order to function.
>
> Ghost 9.0 will image the disk within Windows.

And was one of the last to acquire the ability to do so (I believe Acronis
was amongst the first), and in fact, seemed unable to do so until they
acquired and ruined Drive Image.

mxh

>
> --
> William
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:35:54 PM

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

No.
http://www.symantec.com/region/reg_eu/product/ng_featur...


"usasma" <usasma@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CB19C22A-8BC1-4CEE-9231-40A9F9D62524@microsoft.com...
>I think that the biggest trade off between Ghost and Acronis True Image is
> the ability to image within Windows. Acronis will do it, Ghost requires a
> reboot into the DOS mode in order to function.
>
> "_R" wrote:
>
>> I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
>> monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
>> current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?
>>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:35:55 PM

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

A blue screen with Ghost. Smooth and efficient backups with Acronis is what
I have been experiencing. I am sorry I ever bought Ghost 9.0. I definitely
recommend Acronis True Image.
Mike

"Alan Smith" <alan@hidden.email> wrote in message
news:D ats0v$vdq$3@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> No.
> http://www.symantec.com/region/reg_eu/product/ng_featur...
>
>
> "usasma" <usasma@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CB19C22A-8BC1-4CEE-9231-40A9F9D62524@microsoft.com...
>>I think that the biggest trade off between Ghost and Acronis True Image is
>> the ability to image within Windows. Acronis will do it, Ghost requires
>> a
>> reboot into the DOS mode in order to function.
>>
>> "_R" wrote:
>>
>>> I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
>>> monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
>>> current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?
>>>
>
>
July 11, 2005 8:53:23 PM

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

For the average home user, Image for Windows, from
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/imagew.html is a much smaller (and
less expensive) program and does the job fast and efficiently. It
takes me less than 5 minutes to make an image of my system partition
with about 4 gig of files on.

I have used Acronis and Ghost and had trouble with both. With Image
for Windows, which includes Image for DOS, images can be made whilst
still working in XP and can be written to CD, DVD or a file on another
HD (for the system partition). If saved on a FAT32 HD, image can
be restored using a boot floppy.

JD


"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

>
>"_R" <_R@nomail.org> wrote in message
>news:0kg4d1pqkdlhp3hebp0demgisigoaoalm2@4ax.com...
>>I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
>> monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
>> current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?
>
>Both work fine. I have several customers who use Ghost 2003. They want a
>brand name they recognize They have had no problemsthat couldn't be worked
>around. I use True Image 8.0 myself and prefer it, mostly because I have
>used it more and am used to it. True Image can't format a CD or DVD while
>creating an image and needs 3rd party software installed to do this. Ghost
>doesn't handle oddball partitions (like hidden recovery partitions) as well
>as True Image when cloning drives.
>
>Kerry
>
>
July 11, 2005 9:12:43 PM

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

True Image is the only one that works (well) w/ RAID setups, especially if
you boot to a raid array.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:53:35 PM

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

"_R" wrote:
>I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
> monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
> current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?

I have a very narrow use, but for that, Acronis doesn't suffice.
All I want to do is to archive bootable clones of my system
partition on a large capacity archival internal IDE hard drive.
Acronis True Image will take the entire suface of the source
drive and copy it to the entire surface of the destination drive.
This is great for migrating an OS from a small HD to a larger HD -
the usual vanilla use for a cloning utility. But I want to select JUST
a SINGLE partition from a source HD and transfer it to unallocated
space on a destination HD where it will be among OTHER similar
clones. And they all have to be immediately bootable - none of this
"image restore" step from an image file. Ghost will do this - when
it's working. Right now, though, it frrezes my PC as it begins the
copy step. So, I plan to try Casper XP since their tech rep says
that it will do what I want.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 12:44:33 AM

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

"mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kWuAe.44711$rb6.25053@lakeread07...
>
> "_R" <_R@nomail.org> wrote in message
> news:0kg4d1pqkdlhp3hebp0demgisigoaoalm2@4ax.com...
> >I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
> > monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
> > current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?
>
> Norton's latest "Ghost" is a fiasco...err...combonation of Drive Image
> (which they acquired from Partition Magic") and Ghost. I was a sworn Ghost
> user until went the way of all their other bloatwware. I now refuse to use
> anything Norton.
>
> I can't really compare features since I no longer use Ghost. I've been
using
> Acronis TI for a few years now and have been quite happy. It does what
it's
> supposed to without the hassels and system corruption of Norton Ghost (the
> last version I purchased was v9. I installed it, tried it for a few days
and
> promply returned it. 2000 was the last version I used that was decent).
> Plus, Acronis puts out new builds on a regular basis and has great
customer
> support.
>
> I also have another program many in this NG use called Bootit NG. I prefer
> Acronis.
>
> You can download a trail of Acronis.
>
>
> mxh

I'm glad I'm not the only one to think Ghost 9 is a complete and utter POS.
Symantec/Norton used to have a great name and make great products but they
seem to have turned into the EA (Electronic Arts) of the "tools" market,
just pushing out release after release before the product's really ready.
I'm still a regular user of v8 but also have recently played with the trial
of True Image and have been very impressed.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 9:39:07 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:53:35 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"_R" wrote:
>>I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
>> monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
>> current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?
>
> I have a very narrow use, but for that, Acronis doesn't suffice.
>All I want to do is to archive bootable clones of my system
>partition on a large capacity archival internal IDE hard drive.
>Acronis True Image will take the entire suface of the source
>drive and copy it to the entire surface of the destination drive.
>This is great for migrating an OS from a small HD to a larger HD -
>the usual vanilla use for a cloning utility. But I want to select JUST
>a SINGLE partition from a source HD and transfer it to unallocated
>space on a destination HD where it will be among OTHER similar
>clones.

So far, Acronis will do this.

> And they all have to be immediately bootable - none of this
>"image restore" step from an image file.

If you're referring to booting the image itself (as opposed to
restoring it first) then I'm not sure that Acronis can do it. Just
curious about why you'd want to do that as it sounds like it would be
very slow.

> Ghost will do this - when
>it's working. Right now, though, it frrezes my PC as it begins the
>copy step.

Well, now I'm sold! <g>

> So, I plan to try Casper XP since their tech rep says
>that it will do what I want.
>
>*TimDaniels*

I hope Casper works as planned. Norton and Acronis could use some
competition (I guess there's BootIt Ng as well). Please report back
on whether Casper works out.

I didn't want to tilt my original question with my own opinion, but
I've had much the same experience as many in this thread. I've found
Norton to be too cumbersome. Acronis, on the other hand, seems to
require a few different packages to get the same range of
functionality.

I've also found that Acronis's MigrateEasy, while sounding like a
nice, simple tool, doesn't seem to work at all. Of course their
imager seems to resize partitions on restore now, so the bases are
covered there.

One other thing that was discussed here: Can Acronis restore an
individual file from an image? I haven't had occasion to do this, but
from the menu it appears as if it can. I guess one of the followups
narrowed this to 'restore a locked system file while XP is running.'
That may be a bit different. Again, I'm trying to imagine why that
would be a major requirement, but I guess there are scenarios...
In any event, that sounds like it may be tough to synchronize, and I
would not be surprised to see Ghost crash if the wrong file is chosen.

Re the above: I've occasionally used 'unlocker' (URL on request...I
don't have it handy) to unlock and delete a file that was locked by
XP. It would seem like you could replace it, with the provision that
XP knows to look for it after it's unlocked (Unlocker may stop a
process). Still, I can't think of where I would apply that.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 4:55:16 PM

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

In article <11d5a4brdqj3md1@corp.supernews.com>, frodo@theshire.org
says...
> True Image is the only one that works (well) w/ RAID setups, especially if
> you boot to a raid array.

Funny, I've used GHOST 2003 to restore and image RAID-1 and RAID-5
volumes many times on many platforms.

Ghost 2003 is a great product, with the ability to make images, store
them on a server some place, and then to restore the image over the
network as needed, it's a great tool for shops with many systems.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 9:05:59 PM

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

> One other thing that was discussed here: Can Acronis restore an
> individual file from an image?

Yes. Acronis can "mount" an image file just as if it were another hard
drive/partition and you can access files/folders as normal.
July 13, 2005 3:50:37 AM

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

Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> In article <11d5a4brdqj3md1@corp.supernews.com>, frodo@theshire.org
> says...
>> True Image is the only one that works (well) w/ RAID setups, especially if
>> you boot to a raid array.

> Funny, I've used GHOST 2003 to restore and image RAID-1 and RAID-5
> volumes many times on many platforms.

ONLY from within windows itself; if you loose the raid boot drive you
can't restore it from any form of floppy or cd boot disk using ghost.
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 4:17:17 AM

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

In article <11d8lqd1jd8lh8c@corp.supernews.com>, frodo@theshire.org
says...
> Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> > In article <11d5a4brdqj3md1@corp.supernews.com>, frodo@theshire.org
> > says...
> >> True Image is the only one that works (well) w/ RAID setups, especially if
> >> you boot to a raid array.
>
> > Funny, I've used GHOST 2003 to restore and image RAID-1 and RAID-5
> > volumes many times on many platforms.
>
> ONLY from within windows itself; if you loose the raid boot drive you
> can't restore it from any form of floppy or cd boot disk using ghost.

Nope, I restore the image to a RAID array from a DOS boot disk with the
image on a USB device or DVD. Now, if you're talking about a soft RAID
array created by the OS, then yea, but I'm not silly enough to use that
method when IDE RAID cards are cheap as they are.


--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
July 13, 2005 6:23:29 AM

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

Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> Nope, I restore the image to a RAID array from a DOS boot disk with the
> image on a USB device or DVD. Now, if you're talking about a soft RAID
> array created by the OS, then yea, but I'm not silly enough to use that
> method when IDE RAID cards are cheap as they are.

You are right, but it's an "unsupported feature":

http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ghost.nsf/docid/19...
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 6:23:30 AM

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

OK, you get the award for the longest url tonight ... maybe even this week
!!

<frodo@theshire.org> wrote in message
news:11d8up1nr1re31f@corp.supernews.com...
> Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> > Nope, I restore the image to a RAID array from a DOS boot disk with the
> > image on a USB device or DVD. Now, if you're talking about a soft RAID
> > array created by the OS, then yea, but I'm not silly enough to use that
> > method when IDE RAID cards are cheap as they are.
>
> You are right, but it's an "unsupported feature":
>
>
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ghost.nsf/docid/19...
>
>
>
July 13, 2005 7:42:31 PM

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

Mike Fields <spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcast.net> wrote:
> OK, you get the award for the longest url tonight ... maybe even this week
> !!

sorry,
not my fault!! symantec did it, really... I just cut-and-pasted...

Like them, I deny all responsibility for the usability of my product.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 1:45:07 AM

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

that is a shame that drive image was ruined when it was bought.
i use to use drive image - it's still on my computer.
i found out about true image last year and switched and really like it a
lot.

--
Indera
* * * * * * * * * *
Don't just live life.
Live life well.


"mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:j1vAe.44712$rb6.39015@lakeread07...
:
: "WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:%23zsFWVhhFHA.3568@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: > "usasma" <usasma@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
: > news:CB19C22A-8BC1-4CEE-9231-40A9F9D62524@microsoft.com...
: >>
: >> "_R" wrote:
: >>
: >>> I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
: >>> monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
: >>> current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?
: >>>
: >
: >>I think that the biggest trade off between Ghost and Acronis True Image
is
: >> the ability to image within Windows. Acronis will do it, Ghost
requires
: >> a
: >> reboot into the DOS mode in order to function.
: >
: > Ghost 9.0 will image the disk within Windows.
:
: And was one of the last to acquire the ability to do so (I believe Acronis
: was amongst the first), and in fact, seemed unable to do so until they
: acquired and ruined Drive Image.
:
: mxh
:
: >
: > --
: > William
: >
: >
: >
:
:
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 5:09:45 AM

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

The first: Norton ghost doesn't have protection of image by password as
ATI has. The second: TI allows saving and recovering an image to and
from USB key, Norton doesn't. Nevertheless Norton is good program, but
not the best. Oh, I forgot to say about support of Norton Ghost and
Acronis. You have to wait for response from Norton more than week or
month.
So, I prefer .
'Acronis backup software'
(http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage...)



--
pc_addicted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via http://www.mcse.ms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.mcse.ms/message1724772.html
July 20, 2005 11:47:32 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:59:04 -0400, _R <_R@nomail.org> wrote:

>what are the general tradeoffs between
>current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?

I have both. I use Ghost 2003 to backup my desktop’s HD and True
Image v8 to backup my laptop’s HD. Until today, I had yet to do a
restore with either because the reasons for having backups had yet to
happen. Anyway, today I upgraded my Paperport Pro Office v9 to
Paperport Pro Office v10. That did it! Lost communications with my
scanner and camera. Uninstalled and installed v10 as a new install
instead of upgrading V9 with no joy…. Did an XP System Restore back to
right before the initial upgrade try with No Joy. Then I found out I
also had lost communications with my printer because of this upgrade
(why I do not know). Anyway, you get the idea….. ScanSoft stuck a
big hard one right up my WaZoo.

Popped in DVD 1 of a 2 DVD Ghost backup and booted on the DVD and told
it to save my Arse and it did just that. The backup went on without a
hitch. Afterwards, the computer booted up just fine and everything
was just as it had been at the time the backup was made which was 11
days ago. I didn’t loose much of anything because I backed up my
email messages and the few data files of interest before doing the
restoration. I had installed a new FTP Client since the backup so I
also had to reinstall it.

So, I can attest to the fact that Ghost 2003 works as it should. As
far as True Image goes, will have to wait until I do some idiotic
thing on that machine like upgrading a perfectly good working program.

True Image directs one through the process a lot better than Ghost
does. That would be a concern to newcomers. IOW, you could go the
wrong direction with ghost and wipe out everything. I had someone
that had used Ghost for years tutor me and I made my own little manual
but True Image made a lot better user interface to lead you through
the process.

Learned three lessons on this though….

1. Don’t upgrade anything if it ain’t broke because if you don’t
break it, they surely will.

2. Backup before doing a major upgrade (mine was 11 days old) and
DVD’s are cheap now. Let’s see, my last purchase of DVD’s was a deal
from Office Depot at $19.99 for a drum of 100. That’s 20 cents each
so a complete system backup for me costs me 40 cents. I’ve been told
to do it on DVDRW’s but I can remember having trouble at times with
CDRW’s so I don’t really trust RW’s when it comes to crucial backups.

Regards,
Ed
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 2:50:26 PM

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

Ed wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:59:04 -0400, _R <_R@nomail.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>what are the general tradeoffs between
>>current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?
>>
>>
>
>I have both. I use Ghost 2003 to backup my desktop’s HD and True
>Image v8 to backup my laptop’s HD. Until today, I had yet to do a
>restore with either because the reasons for having backups had yet to
>happen. Anyway, today I upgraded my Paperport Pro Office v9 to
>Paperport Pro Office v10. That did it! Lost communications with my
>scanner and camera. Uninstalled and installed v10 as a new install
>instead of upgrading V9 with no joy…. Did an XP System Restore back to
>right before the initial upgrade try with No Joy. Then I found out I
>also had lost communications with my printer because of this upgrade
>(why I do not know). Anyway, you get the idea….. ScanSoft stuck a
>big hard one right up my WaZoo.
>
>Popped in DVD 1 of a 2 DVD Ghost backup and booted on the DVD and told
>it to save my Arse and it did just that. The backup went on without a
>hitch. Afterwards, the computer booted up just fine and everything
>was just as it had been at the time the backup was made which was 11
>days ago. I didn’t loose much of anything because I backed up my
>email messages and the few data files of interest before doing the
>restoration. I had installed a new FTP Client since the backup so I
>also had to reinstall it.
>
>So, I can attest to the fact that Ghost 2003 works as it should. As
>far as True Image goes, will have to wait until I do some idiotic
>thing on that machine like upgrading a perfectly good working program.
>
>True Image directs one through the process a lot better than Ghost
>does. That would be a concern to newcomers. IOW, you could go the
>wrong direction with ghost and wipe out everything. I had someone
>that had used Ghost for years tutor me and I made my own little manual
>but True Image made a lot better user interface to lead you through
>the process.
>
>Learned three lessons on this though….
>
>1. Don’t upgrade anything if it ain’t broke because if you don’t
>break it, they surely will.
>
>2. Backup before doing a major upgrade (mine was 11 days old) and
>DVD’s are cheap now. Let’s see, my last purchase of DVD’s was a deal
>from Office Depot at $19.99 for a drum of 100. That’s 20 cents each
>so a complete system backup for me costs me 40 cents. I’ve been told
>to do it on DVDRW’s but I can remember having trouble at times with
>CDRW’s so I don’t really trust RW’s when it comes to crucial backups.
>
>Regards,
>Ed
>
>
I have an external (FWR) duplicate HDD connected to my laptop for
backup, using PowerQuest's DriveCopy every few days....
If I corrupt the C:Windows system, I use Ghost 2003 A: floppy DOS boot
to restore sector by sector; "ghost-clone,mode=copy,src=3,dst=1 -a -b"..
Also if the C: HDD goes bad, the duplicate external HDD can replace the
C:..
July 21, 2005 6:32:54 PM

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

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:50:26 -0400, Willard <guess@msn.invalid> wrote:

>I have an external (FWR) duplicate HDD connected to my laptop for
>backup, using PowerQuest's DriveCopy every few days....

I had thought of setting up a RAID system for both enhanced
performance and "Real Time" backup to the main HD. However, it is my
understanding that RAID would not be a good idea for a backup because
whatever screw up one does to the main HD (that would require a
recovery) would also have been mirrored on the RAID drive.

Regards,
TR
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 10:08:54 AM

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

Informative reply. However, the version of Ghost you mentioned is not the
current version as requested by the OP.

"Ed" <fake@fake.com> wrote in message
news:fkotd1t7p91taj8tj1u71c5lmg6jgr214i@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:59:04 -0400, _R <_R@nomail.org> wrote:
>
> >what are the general tradeoffs between
> >current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?
>
> I have both. I use Ghost 2003 to backup my desktop's HD and True
> Image v8 to backup my laptop's HD. Until today, I had yet to do a
> restore with either because the reasons for having backups had yet to
> happen. Anyway, today I upgraded my Paperport Pro Office v9 to
> Paperport Pro Office v10. That did it! Lost communications with my
> scanner and camera. Uninstalled and installed v10 as a new install
> instead of upgrading V9 with no joy.. Did an XP System Restore back to
> right before the initial upgrade try with No Joy. Then I found out I
> also had lost communications with my printer because of this upgrade
> (why I do not know). Anyway, you get the idea... ScanSoft stuck a
> big hard one right up my WaZoo.
>
> Popped in DVD 1 of a 2 DVD Ghost backup and booted on the DVD and told
> it to save my Arse and it did just that. The backup went on without a
> hitch. Afterwards, the computer booted up just fine and everything
> was just as it had been at the time the backup was made which was 11
> days ago. I didn't loose much of anything because I backed up my
> email messages and the few data files of interest before doing the
> restoration. I had installed a new FTP Client since the backup so I
> also had to reinstall it.
>
> So, I can attest to the fact that Ghost 2003 works as it should. As
> far as True Image goes, will have to wait until I do some idiotic
> thing on that machine like upgrading a perfectly good working program.
>
> True Image directs one through the process a lot better than Ghost
> does. That would be a concern to newcomers. IOW, you could go the
> wrong direction with ghost and wipe out everything. I had someone
> that had used Ghost for years tutor me and I made my own little manual
> but True Image made a lot better user interface to lead you through
> the process.
>
> Learned three lessons on this though..
>
> 1. Don't upgrade anything if it ain't broke because if you don't
> break it, they surely will.
>
> 2. Backup before doing a major upgrade (mine was 11 days old) and
> DVD's are cheap now. Let's see, my last purchase of DVD's was a deal
> from Office Depot at $19.99 for a drum of 100. That's 20 cents each
> so a complete system backup for me costs me 40 cents. I've been told
> to do it on DVDRW's but I can remember having trouble at times with
> CDRW's so I don't really trust RW's when it comes to crucial backups.
>
> Regards,
> Ed
July 22, 2005 2:42:36 PM

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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 06:08:54 -0500, "Lil' Dave"
<spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:

>Informative reply. However, the version of Ghost you mentioned is not the
>current version as requested by the OP.

You are right and I did forget to mention in my response why I was
giving my opinion based on v2003 instead of the version in question.
I can't count the times and places I have been directed to use v2003
over prior or later versions of Ghost for doing a single,
non-networked HD image to optical media. The reasons have been many
with some being in-depth technical reasons beyond my understanding.
However, there have been so many suggestions directed toward me to use
only v2003 that I 'assume' there is validity in the suggestions. I
thought that what I had been told might be of interest to the author
but I did forget to add that to my response. Sorry for the oversight.

Regards,
Ed
!