Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best disk cloning tool Ghost or Acronis?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 6:29:49 PM

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

I am trying to clone my XP Pro system to minimize the work involved in
creating duplicate configurations.

I have tried Acronis True Image - while it seems like a very fast product -
it is quite difficult to create a bootable image - esp if you aret trying to
use a combo of a single bootable floppy diskette and a USB EXT drive holding
the cloned iamge.

I wonder if Symantec Ghost 9 does a better job of this although all the
reviews say it is slower - it may be a better product?



--
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 6:29:50 PM

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

"JM7" <one@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uE5Ge0inFHA.1996@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I am trying to clone my XP Pro system to minimize the work involved in
> creating duplicate configurations.
>
> I have tried Acronis True Image - while it seems like a very fast
> product -
> it is quite difficult to create a bootable image - esp if you aret trying
> to
> use a combo of a single bootable floppy diskette and a USB EXT drive
> holding
> the cloned iamge.
>
> I wonder if Symantec Ghost 9 does a better job of this although all the
> reviews say it is slower - it may be a better product?
>
You might care to explain what you find 'difficult' about creating a
bootable image when using True Image (Acronis). If you find the procedure
in True Image difficult you will not find the process in Ghost any easier.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 6:29:50 PM

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

"JM7" <one@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uE5Ge0inFHA.1996@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am trying to clone my XP Pro system to minimize the work involved in
> creating duplicate configurations.
>


Okay. You've indicated wanting to clone.


> I have tried Acronis True Image - while it seems like a very fast
product -
> it is quite difficult to create a bootable image - esp if you aret trying
to
> use a combo of a single bootable floppy diskette and a USB EXT drive
holding
> the cloned iamge.
>


An image is not a clone.


> I wonder if Symantec Ghost 9 does a better job of this although all the
> reviews say it is slower - it may be a better product?
>

As noted in your reply to Edward, your hardware limitation seems to be
problem with Acronis. But may not be true due to the obvious lack of
knowledge of hardware involving Acronis. This is not the comparative
cloning performance of the two products in either case as your OP header
provides for.

There is no way in hell an image file of an XP partition can be split
amongst 5 - 7 standard 1.44 MB floppy diskettes as noted by your reply to
Edward. That's not enough storage space. But this may also be a ruse by
yourself as well. You may be baiting as the floppies may be Zip or MO
device or similar. In any event, your result will never be a clone.
Rather, an image instead.
Related resources
August 11, 2005 6:29:51 PM

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

Lil' Dave wrote:

> "JM7" <one@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uE5Ge0inFHA.1996@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> I am trying to clone my XP Pro system to minimize the work involved
>> in creating duplicate configurations.
>>
>
>
> Okay. You've indicated wanting to clone.
>
>
>> I have tried Acronis True Image - while it seems like a very fast
> product -
>> it is quite difficult to create a bootable image - esp if you aret
>> trying
> to
>> use a combo of a single bootable floppy diskette and a USB EXT drive
> holding
>> the cloned iamge.
>>
>
>
> An image is not a clone.
>
>
>> I wonder if Symantec Ghost 9 does a better job of this although all
>> the reviews say it is slower - it may be a better product?
>>
>
> As noted in your reply to Edward, your hardware limitation seems to be
> problem with Acronis. But may not be true due to the obvious lack of
> knowledge of hardware involving Acronis. This is not the comparative
> cloning performance of the two products in either case as your OP
> header provides for.
>
> There is no way in hell an image file of an XP partition can be split
> amongst 5 - 7 standard 1.44 MB floppy diskettes as noted by your reply
> to
> Edward. That's not enough storage space. But this may also be a ruse
> by
> yourself as well. You may be baiting as the floppies may be Zip or MO
> device or similar. In any event, your result will never be a clone.
> Rather, an image instead.

Acronis True Image allows you to make a bootable cd so you can
image/restore from a cd-drive. Ghost 9 also allows you to create a
bootable cd but you cannot create a new image, just restore one. Both
programs have a very easy to understand graphical user interface. In
any case, I think the OP isn't quite getting how to use imaging
software. Time to RTFM for whichever program s/he has.

Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 8:38:02 PM

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

I may be wrong here.

But if you only have a floppy disk drive and an external USB HD, then I only
want a single bootable floppy diskette. Acronis seems to only have a2
options either make the image on 5 - 7 floppies or all on one bootable CD.

I can't see how you would make a combo.

--
John
jrg_REM_SPAM@bigpond.net.au
"Edward W. Thompson" <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ePMmXCjnFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> "JM7" <one@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uE5Ge0inFHA.1996@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >I am trying to clone my XP Pro system to minimize the work involved in
> > creating duplicate configurations.
> >
> > I have tried Acronis True Image - while it seems like a very fast
> > product -
> > it is quite difficult to create a bootable image - esp if you aret
trying
> > to
> > use a combo of a single bootable floppy diskette and a USB EXT drive
> > holding
> > the cloned iamge.
> >
> > I wonder if Symantec Ghost 9 does a better job of this although all the
> > reviews say it is slower - it may be a better product?
> >
> You might care to explain what you find 'difficult' about creating a
> bootable image when using True Image (Acronis). If you find the procedure
> in True Image difficult you will not find the process in Ghost any easier.
>
>
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 8:38:03 PM

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

JM7 wrote:
>
> But if you only have a floppy disk drive and an external USB HD, then I only
> want a single bootable floppy diskette. Acronis seems to only have a2
> options either make the image on 5 - 7 floppies or all on one bootable CD.

Then you will need to find out how to put the dos usb drivers on your
bootdisk to make it see the usb drive in dos. not always easy


--
http://www.bootdisk.com/
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 8:23:23 AM

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

Yes, Acronis True Image is a very fast backup product, but besides it
has a lot of other preferences. Norton ghost doesn't have protection of
image by password, ATI has, ATI allows saving and recovering an image
to and from a USB key, Norton doesn't. About support of Norton Ghost:
you have to wait for response from Norton for more than a week or
month. So, I'm sure that Ghost isn't better.
>it is quite difficult to create a bootable image - esp if you aret trying to
>use a combo of a single bootable floppy diskette and a USB EXT drive holding
>the cloned iamge.
If you have a trouble with it, you should go here:
http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/support/
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 11:12:39 AM

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

Kinoby wrote:
> Yes, Acronis True Image is a very fast backup product, but besides it
> has a lot of other preferences. Norton ghost doesn't have protection
> of image by password, ATI has, ATI allows saving and recovering an
> image to and from a USB key, Norton doesn't. About support of Norton
> Ghost: you have to wait for response from Norton for more than a week
> or month. So, I'm sure that Ghost isn't better.
>> it is quite difficult to create a bootable image - esp if you aret
>> trying to use a combo of a single bootable floppy diskette and a USB
>> EXT drive holding the cloned iamge.
> If you have a trouble with it, you should go here:
> http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/support/

Either works great if you have a clue at what you are doing. =)

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 12:20:49 PM

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

The password thing in Ghost you noted is odd. The basis for the current
Ghost was the last version of DriveImage. This had facility for passwording
the image file. If true, wonder why they would remove this option.

"Kinoby" <dlyagugla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123845803.115463.100980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, Acronis True Image is a very fast backup product, but besides it
> has a lot of other preferences. Norton ghost doesn't have protection of
> image by password, ATI has, ATI allows saving and recovering an image
> to and from a USB key, Norton doesn't. About support of Norton Ghost:
> you have to wait for response from Norton for more than a week or
> month. So, I'm sure that Ghost isn't better.
> >it is quite difficult to create a bootable image - esp if you aret trying
to
> >use a combo of a single bootable floppy diskette and a USB EXT drive
holding
> >the cloned iamge.
> If you have a trouble with it, you should go here:
> http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/support/
>
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 6:22:01 PM

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

Kinoby wrote:
>

Or you can use the free xxclone

> Yes, Acronis True Image is a very fast backup product, but besides it
> has a lot of other preferences. Norton ghost doesn't have protection of
> image by password, ATI has, ATI allows saving and recovering an image
> to and from a USB key, Norton doesn't. About support of Norton Ghost:
> you have to wait for response from Norton for more than a week or
> month. So, I'm sure that Ghost isn't better.
> >it is quite difficult to create a bootable image - esp if you aret trying to
> >use a combo of a single bootable floppy diskette and a USB EXT drive holding
> >the cloned iamge.
> If you have a trouble with it, you should go here:
> http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/support/

--
http://www.bootdisk.com/
!