Best disk cloning tool Ghost or Acronis?

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?


--
9 answers Last reply
More about best disk cloning tool ghost acronis
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
    >
    >
  5. 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/
  6. 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/
  7. 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
  8. 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/
    >
  9. 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/
Ask a new question

Read More

Windows XP