Acronis vs Ghost

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?
28 answers Last reply
More about acronis ghost
  1. 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?
    >
  2. 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
  3. 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/diskdirector/

    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?
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
    >
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    No.
    http://www.symantec.com/region/reg_eu/product/ng_features.html


    "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?
    >>
  9. 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:dats0v$vdq$3@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > No.
    > http://www.symantec.com/region/reg_eu/product/ng_features.html
    >
    >
    > "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?
    >>>
    >
    >
  10. 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
    >
    >
  11. 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.
  12. 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*
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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/1999010613522725?Open&src=sg&docid=2002092510522725&nsf=ghost.nsf&view=8f7dc138830563c888256c2200662ecd/dfb4b017218165c088256c3f00622fae?opendocument&prod=norton%20ghost&ver=2003%20for%20windows%202000/nt/me/98&dtype=&prod=Norton%20Ghost&ver=2003%20for%20Windows%202000/NT/Me/98/XP&osv=&osv_lvl
  20. 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/1999010613522725?Open&src=sg&docid=2002092510522725&nsf=ghost.nsf&view=8f7dc138830563c888256c2200662ecd/dfb4b017218165c088256c3f00622fae?opendocument&prod=norton%20ghost&ver=2003%20for%20windows%202000/nt/me/98&dtype=&prod=Norton%20Ghost&ver=2003%20for%20Windows%202000/NT/Me/98/XP&osv=&osv_lvl
    >
    >
    >
  21. 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.
  22. 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
    : >
    : >
    : >
    :
    :
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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:..
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Norton Microsoft Monster Windows XP