Backup - GHOST or Acronis True Image? For win xp.

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Ritter197, Sep 24, 2004.

  1. Ritter197

    Ritter197 Guest

    What is the better software? Ghost version 9.0 or True Image version 8.0 by
    Acronis?
    To be used with windows xp and an external 80GB hard drive.Make an image and
    also be able to restore individual files AND copy all files while in
    windows.
    Have:
    Intel Pentium 2800 computer. 512 MB RAM
    Cable
     
    Ritter197, Sep 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ritter197

    Ben Guest

    Ritter197 wrote:
    > What is the better software? Ghost version 9.0 or True Image version 8.0 by
    > Acronis?
    > To be used with windows xp and an external 80GB hard drive.Make an image and
    > also be able to restore individual files AND copy all files while in
    > windows.
    > Have:
    > Intel Pentium 2800 computer. 512 MB RAM
    > Cable
    >
    >

    I tried GHOST a few weeks before.
    It is very easy to use, have a friendly interface.
    With an image made, you don't have to activate Windows.
    If you are afraid of MS will be closed next month, it is a good tool for
    you.
    But GHOST is more expansive.
    It is more expansive than antivirus.
    But it is cheaper than Windows.
    It is more expansive than a case.
    But it is cheaper than a RAM.
    GHOST is cool and good, you must try it.
     
    Ben, Sep 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ritter197

    Don MI Guest

    "Ritter197" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > What is the better software? Ghost version 9.0 or True Image version 8.0
    > by Acronis?
    > To be used with windows xp and an external 80GB hard drive.Make an image
    > and also be able to restore individual files AND copy all files while in
    > windows.
    > Have:
    > Intel Pentium 2800 computer. 512 MB RAM
    > Cable
    >


    Which image program you use is strictly an IMO.

    The current versions of Norton Ghost are Version 9 and Ghost 2003.

    Ghost Version 9 creates an image from within Windows XP. Some do like that
    approach as they think a file could change during the image process. I have
    not had a problem with Ghost Version 9 or its prior PowerQuest Drive Image
    7. However, I cannot disprove the concern. Ghost Version 9 allows you to
    restore selected folders and files and do incremental image backups.

    Ghost 2003 reboots your computer to a version of DOS {not MS-DOS} to create
    the image. Ghost 2003 has an utility to restore selected folders and files.

    The retail package for Ghost Version 9 contains both Version 9 and Ghost
    2003.

    Others have a strong preference to alternate image programs.

    Don
     
    Don MI, Sep 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Ritter197

    Ben Guest

    Ritter197 wrote:
    > What is the better software? Ghost version 9.0 or True Image version 8.0 by
    > Acronis?
    > To be used with windows xp and an external 80GB hard drive.Make an image and
    > also be able to restore individual files AND copy all files while in
    > windows.
    > Have:
    > Intel Pentium 2800 computer. 512 MB RAM
    > Cable
    >
    >

    I think a fresh installation is better than GHOST restoration.
    First, you don't backup viruses.
    Second, you can put in new informations during installation.
    The reasons for you to use GHOST is important.
    The only good reason for you to use it is backing up hard disk.
    Because backing up hard disk is allowed while backing up a CD is not
    allowed.
    What I said about activation was not good.
    Because Win XP will call for an activation if you change too many hardwares.
    I saw it on the MS web.
     
    Ben, Sep 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Ritter197

    Don MI Guest

    "Ben" <000@000.000> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > I think a fresh installation is better than GHOST restoration.
    > First, you don't backup viruses.
    > Second, you can put in new informations during installation.
    > The reasons for you to use GHOST is important.
    > The only good reason for you to use it is backing up hard disk.
    > Because backing up hard disk is allowed while backing up a CD is not
    > allowed.
    > What I said about activation was not good.
    > Because Win XP will call for an activation if you change too many
    > hardwares.
    > I saw it on the MS web.


    Total trash.

    "Because Win XP will call for an activation if you change too many
    hardwires"

    You image a system before and after a hardware change. The before image is
    to be able to return to the prior configuration if the hardware install
    causes a problem. The after image is your new standard. If you install new
    hardware and Windows XP does not require a re-activation, then the after new
    hardware image will not require a re-activation.

    "The only good reason for you to use it is backing up hard disk."

    So, that is what an image program does.

    "Because backing up hard disk is allowed while backing up a CD is not
    allowed."

    Other program will backup{copy} a CD if you so choose.

    Don
     
    Don MI, Sep 24, 2004
    #5
  6. Ritter197

    Ben Guest

    Don MI <> wrote:
    > "Ben" <000@000.000> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >
    >>I think a fresh installation is better than GHOST restoration.
    >>First, you don't backup viruses.
    >>Second, you can put in new informations during installation.
    >>The reasons for you to use GHOST is important.
    >>The only good reason for you to use it is backing up hard disk.
    >>Because backing up hard disk is allowed while backing up a CD is not
    >>allowed.
    >>What I said about activation was not good.
    >>Because Win XP will call for an activation if you change too many
    >>hardwares.
    >>I saw it on the MS web.

    >
    >
    > Total trash.
    >
    > "Because Win XP will call for an activation if you change too many
    > hardwires"
    >
    > You image a system before and after a hardware change. The before image is
    > to be able to return to the prior configuration if the hardware install
    > causes a problem. The after image is your new standard. If you install new
    > hardware and Windows XP does not require a re-activation, then the after new
    > hardware image will not require a re-activation.
    >
    > "The only good reason for you to use it is backing up hard disk."
    >
    > So, that is what an image program does.
    >
    > "Because backing up hard disk is allowed while backing up a CD is not
    > allowed."
    >
    > Other program will backup{copy} a CD if you so choose.
    >
    > Don
    >
    >
    >

    During start up, Windows detects your hardwares, it is true.
    Every OS do it at start up, and load drivers according to the detection.
    If you go into safe mode, no drivers will be loaded.
    What I said is according to MS.
    Of course re-activation is possible not true, because they are lying.

    And no body knows, if you want to copy a CD.
    But GHOST can not be used to copy a CD.

    If you do have any reason for use GHOST, it is your right to try it.
     
    Ben, Sep 24, 2004
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. c.rowlands4

    Acronis True Image Drive Image7 or Norton Ghost 2003

    c.rowlands4, Dec 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,668
    Peter C. Bogert
    Dec 7, 2003
  2. vvcd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,421
  3. Gigi

    Norton Ghost versus Acronis True Image

    Gigi, May 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    7,012
    Michael-NC
    May 23, 2004
  4. john

    Acronis True Image or Norton Ghost

    john, Jan 22, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    414
  5. John Jay Smith

    Acronis True image 9.0 or Norton Ghost 10.0 ?

    John Jay Smith, Feb 14, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    1,608
    All Things Mopar
    Feb 19, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page