Norton Ghost versus Acronis True Image

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Gigi, May 20, 2004.

  1. Gigi

    Gigi Guest

    I've about given up on Norton Ghost. It seems the only way I can get ghost to
    work is buy a ps2 keyboard and mouse and I'm wondering if I'd be better off
    spending my money on Acronis True Image. It sounds like TI is much easier for
    the novice to use. Anybody out there with input?
    Gigi, May 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. whats the problem your having with Ghost?


    "Gigi" <itchyfeet(no spam)@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:U03rc.3375$...
    > I've about given up on Norton Ghost. It seems the only way I can get

    ghost to
    > work is buy a ps2 keyboard and mouse and I'm wondering if I'd be better

    off
    > spending my money on Acronis True Image. It sounds like TI is much easier

    for
    > the novice to use. Anybody out there with input?
    >
    >
    Camel Toe \\|/, May 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gigi

    mark mandel Guest

    "Gigi" <itchyfeet(no spam)@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:U03rc.3375$...
    > I've about given up on Norton Ghost. It seems the only way I can get

    ghost to
    > work is buy a ps2 keyboard and mouse and I'm wondering if I'd be better

    off
    > spending my money on Acronis True Image. It sounds like TI is much easier

    for
    > the novice to use. Anybody out there with input?


    I've had mixed results with the Ghost. I had thought that when you've
    created a backup that you can only restore it to the PC that it was taken
    from which was the reason that just the other day I was struggling with
    several attempts to restore a backup of Win 98 S.E. onto my newest PC after
    all else failed(changes in the motherboard seem to account for this
    problem). Then I discovered that a particular option I selected from an
    "options" menu enabled me to finally get the damned thing restored, warts
    and all.

    Mark Mandell
    >
    >
    mark mandel, May 20, 2004
    #3
  4. Gigi

    colin Guest

    Gigi <itchyfeet(no spam)@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:U03rc.3375$...
    > I've about given up on Norton Ghost. It seems the only way I can get

    ghost to
    > work is buy a ps2 keyboard and mouse and I'm wondering if I'd be better

    off
    > spending my money on Acronis True Image. It sounds like TI is much easier

    for
    > the novice to use. Anybody out there with input?
    >
    >


    Haven`t used either of the products mentioned, although acronis looks like
    it could be good.
    I`m a `drive image` user, and find it to very easy to use, where-by you can
    backup or restore in just 2-3 clicks.
    http://www.powerquest.com/driveimage/
    colin, May 20, 2004
    #4
  5. Gigi

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    "mark mandel" <> wrote in
    news:K24rc.3440$:

    > I've had mixed results with the Ghost. I had thought that when
    > you've created a backup that you can only restore it to the PC that it
    > was taken from which was the reason that just the other day I was
    > struggling with several attempts to restore a backup of Win 98 S.E.
    > onto my newest PC after all else failed(changes in the motherboard
    > seem to account for this
    >


    You can restore a ghost image to /any/ machine that has enough disk space
    for it. The problem you were having is you had one set of hardware, and an
    installation from another set of hardware. Operating systems don't like to
    be picked up and moved to different hardware without notice.

    --
    website: http://www.demonlag.com
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    email:
    DeMoN LaG, May 20, 2004
    #5
  6. Gigi

    bearman Guest

    "colin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Gigi <itchyfeet(no spam)@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:U03rc.3375$...
    > > I've about given up on Norton Ghost. It seems the only way I can get

    > ghost to
    > > work is buy a ps2 keyboard and mouse and I'm wondering if I'd be better

    > off
    > > spending my money on Acronis True Image. It sounds like TI is much

    easier
    > for
    > > the novice to use. Anybody out there with input?
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Haven`t used either of the products mentioned, although acronis looks like
    > it could be good.
    > I`m a `drive image` user, and find it to very easy to use, where-by you

    can
    > backup or restore in just 2-3 clicks.
    > http://www.powerquest.com/driveimage/
    >
    >I've used Acronis True Image twice now to make a clone of my XP boot drive

    and so far it's work perfectly.

    Bearman
    bearman, May 20, 2004
    #6
  7. Gigi

    Wizard Guest

    Try DiskImage

    Gigi wrote:
    >
    > I've about given up on Norton Ghost. It seems the only way I can get ghost to
    > work is buy a ps2 keyboard and mouse and I'm wondering if I'd be better off
    > spending my money on Acronis True Image. It sounds like TI is much easier for
    > the novice to use. Anybody out there with input?
    Wizard, May 20, 2004
    #7
  8. Gigi

    Robert Baer Guest

    DeMoN LaG wrote:
    >
    > "mark mandel" <> wrote in
    > news:K24rc.3440$:
    >
    > > I've had mixed results with the Ghost. I had thought that when
    > > you've created a backup that you can only restore it to the PC that it
    > > was taken from which was the reason that just the other day I was
    > > struggling with several attempts to restore a backup of Win 98 S.E.
    > > onto my newest PC after all else failed(changes in the motherboard
    > > seem to account for this
    > >

    >
    > You can restore a ghost image to /any/ machine that has enough disk space
    > for it. The problem you were having is you had one set of hardware, and an
    > installation from another set of hardware. Operating systems don't like to
    > be picked up and moved to different hardware without notice.
    >
    > --
    > website: http://www.demonlag.com
    > AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    > email:


    It seems that it is not sane to "backup" or "image"; that the best way
    is to *clone* the master drive (ie make an "exact" copy).
    That way when the master HD goes bad, the *copy* can !immediately! be
    used as the new master.
    By *immediate* i mean "less than 30 seconds".
    Robert Baer, May 20, 2004
    #8
  9. Gigi

    Michael-NC Guest

    "Robert Baer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > DeMoN LaG wrote:
    > >
    > > "mark mandel" <> wrote in
    > > news:K24rc.3440$:
    > >
    > > > I've had mixed results with the Ghost. I had thought that when
    > > > you've created a backup that you can only restore it to the PC that it
    > > > was taken from which was the reason that just the other day I was
    > > > struggling with several attempts to restore a backup of Win 98 S.E.
    > > > onto my newest PC after all else failed(changes in the motherboard
    > > > seem to account for this
    > > >

    > >
    > > You can restore a ghost image to /any/ machine that has enough disk

    space
    > > for it. The problem you were having is you had one set of hardware, and

    an
    > > installation from another set of hardware. Operating systems don't like

    to
    > > be picked up and moved to different hardware without notice.
    > >
    > > --
    > > website: http://www.demonlag.com
    > > AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    > > email:

    >
    > It seems that it is not sane to "backup" or "image"; that the best way
    > is to *clone* the master drive (ie make an "exact" copy).


    Image and clone is the same.

    > That way when the master HD goes bad, the *copy* can !immediately! be
    > used as the new master.
    > By *immediate* i mean "less than 30 seconds".


    Unless you're cloning an OS that is already unstable.

    I'm not at all impressed with cloning. All I want is my data backed up and
    backed up redundantly. I find that clones are almost useless to the average
    home user but very useful in a multi-user environment. Say you've been
    faithfully cloning your drive every week and your motherboard goes south.
    Your board is 3 years old and not worth replacing it with an identical one
    so you buy a newer motherboard and maybe a newer CPU. Your clone is useless,
    _except_ for the data on it. This is just my preference but I only back up
    data. I have no need to back up installed apps and an OS.
    Michael-NC, May 20, 2004
    #9
  10. Gigi

    Gigi Guest

    "Wizard" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Try DiskImage
    >

    Isn't DiskImage also made by Norton? I'm totally turned off by Norton because
    of their attitude when I was trying to install Ghost. I wouldn't have a Norton
    product now!
    > Gigi wrote:
    > >
    > > I've about given up on Norton Ghost. It seems the only way I can get ghost

    to
    > > work is buy a ps2 keyboard and mouse and I'm wondering if I'd be better off
    > > spending my money on Acronis True Image. It sounds like TI is much easier

    for
    > > the novice to use. Anybody out there with input?
    Gigi, May 20, 2004
    #10
  11. Gigi

    Gigi Guest

    I wanted to send a mirror image of my hard drive (C:) to an Iomega external hard
    drive (D:) I installed Ghost from the cd but when I attempted to use it I kept
    getting errors and a failure notification. I called Symantec Tech support and
    after several hours was told that ghost wouldn't work with USB devices with the
    exception of a USB hard drive. They suggested I buy a new keyboard, a new
    mouse, disconnect one of my printers and my scanner. This certainly wasn't what
    I had in mind when I purchased their software. I just want a simple program
    that will make a clone of my hard drive so that I can put it away in a safe
    place and not have to worry about settings, drivers, updates to Microsoft,
    shareware that I've downloaded and purchased off the Internet, etc. and I want
    to do it in a Windows XP environment and not have to jump through dos hoops
    which I don't know how to do.

    "Camel Toe \|/" <> wrote in message
    news:F14rc.43749$...
    > whats the problem your having with Ghost?
    >
    >
    > "Gigi" <itchyfeet(no spam)@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:U03rc.3375$...
    > > I've about given up on Norton Ghost. It seems the only way I can get

    > ghost to
    > > work is buy a ps2 keyboard and mouse and I'm wondering if I'd be better

    > off
    > > spending my money on Acronis True Image. It sounds like TI is much easier

    > for
    > > the novice to use. Anybody out there with input?
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Gigi, May 20, 2004
    #11
  12. Gigi

    Trent© Guest

    On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:02:54 GMT, "Gigi" <itchyfeet(no
    spam)@earthlink.net> wrote:

    >I wanted to send a mirror image of my hard drive (C:) to an Iomega external hard
    >drive (D:) I installed Ghost from the cd but when I attempted to use it I kept
    >getting errors and a failure notification. I called Symantec Tech support and
    >after several hours was told that ghost wouldn't work with USB devices with the
    >exception of a USB hard drive. They suggested I buy a new keyboard, a new
    >mouse, disconnect one of my printers and my scanner. This certainly wasn't what
    >I had in mind when I purchased their software. I just want a simple program
    >that will make a clone of my hard drive so that I can put it away in a safe
    >place and not have to worry about settings, drivers, updates to Microsoft,
    >shareware that I've downloaded and purchased off the Internet, etc. and I want
    >to do it in a Windows XP environment and not have to jump through dos hoops
    >which I don't know how to do.


    Once you do all this, how are you gonna do a restore?


    Have a nice week...

    Trent©

    Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
    Trent©, May 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Gigi

    Drifter Guest

    On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:12:04 GMT, "Gigi" <itchyfeet(no
    spam)@earthlink.net> wrote:

    >I've about given up on Norton Ghost. It seems the only way I can get ghost to
    >work is buy a ps2 keyboard and mouse and I'm wondering if I'd be better off
    >spending my money on Acronis True Image. It sounds like TI is much easier for
    >the novice to use. Anybody out there with input?


    I have to use Ghost at work. It works but for some of the things I
    have to do (like make it support USB ports) it requires a silly amount
    of labor on my part.

    I use TrueImage at home and it is what Ghost should be by now.

    I keep e-mailing Symantec asking them when they are going to catch up
    but strangely enough I never get any answers <grin>.

    Now TrueImage hasn't been perfect. Occasionally an update will break
    something. But (unlike Symantec) if you email Acronis with the issue
    there is usually a rapid response.

    Happy Trueimage user since early v6!


    Drifter
    "I've been here, I've been there..."
    Drifter, May 21, 2004
    #13
  14. Gigi

    Gigi Guest

    "Trent©" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:02:54 GMT, "Gigi" <itchyfeet(no
    > spam)@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    > >I wanted to send a mirror image of my hard drive (C:) to an Iomega external

    hard
    > >drive (D:) I installed Ghost from the cd but when I attempted to use it I

    kept
    > >getting errors and a failure notification. I called Symantec Tech support

    and
    > >after several hours was told that ghost wouldn't work with USB devices with

    the
    > >exception of a USB hard drive. They suggested I buy a new keyboard, a new
    > >mouse, disconnect one of my printers and my scanner. This certainly wasn't

    what
    > >I had in mind when I purchased their software. I just want a simple program
    > >that will make a clone of my hard drive so that I can put it away in a safe
    > >place and not have to worry about settings, drivers, updates to Microsoft,
    > >shareware that I've downloaded and purchased off the Internet, etc. and I

    want
    > >to do it in a Windows XP environment and not have to jump through dos hoops
    > >which I don't know how to do.

    >
    > Once you do all this, how are you gonna do a restore?
    >
    >
    > Have a nice week...
    >
    > Trent©
    >
    > Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!


    Hopefully, if the C drive crashes, I will be able to recover by first installing
    the recovery disks that came with this computer, then installing my Win XP
    Upgrade, then access the D drive and reinstall everything else. That's why I'm
    asking all these questions about True Image.
    Gigi, May 21, 2004
    #14
  15. Gigi

    Robert Baer Guest

    Michael-NC wrote:
    >
    > "Robert Baer" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > DeMoN LaG wrote:
    > > >
    > > > "mark mandel" <> wrote in
    > > > news:K24rc.3440$:
    > > >
    > > > > I've had mixed results with the Ghost. I had thought that when
    > > > > you've created a backup that you can only restore it to the PC that it
    > > > > was taken from which was the reason that just the other day I was
    > > > > struggling with several attempts to restore a backup of Win 98 S.E.
    > > > > onto my newest PC after all else failed(changes in the motherboard
    > > > > seem to account for this
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > You can restore a ghost image to /any/ machine that has enough disk

    > space
    > > > for it. The problem you were having is you had one set of hardware, and

    > an
    > > > installation from another set of hardware. Operating systems don't like

    > to
    > > > be picked up and moved to different hardware without notice.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > website: http://www.demonlag.com
    > > > AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    > > > email:

    > >
    > > It seems that it is not sane to "backup" or "image"; that the best way
    > > is to *clone* the master drive (ie make an "exact" copy).

    >
    > Image and clone is the same.
    >
    > > That way when the master HD goes bad, the *copy* can !immediately! be
    > > used as the new master.
    > > By *immediate* i mean "less than 30 seconds".

    >
    > Unless you're cloning an OS that is already unstable.
    >
    > I'm not at all impressed with cloning. All I want is my data backed up and
    > backed up redundantly. I find that clones are almost useless to the average
    > home user but very useful in a multi-user environment. Say you've been
    > faithfully cloning your drive every week and your motherboard goes south.
    > Your board is 3 years old and not worth replacing it with an identical one
    > so you buy a newer motherboard and maybe a newer CPU. Your clone is useless,
    > _except_ for the data on it. This is just my preference but I only back up
    > data. I have no need to back up installed apps and an OS.


    I have been making copies aka cloning for over 5 years and have had a
    number of "master" drives go bad on me.
    Like i said, the copy became the new master in a rather short period
    of time.
    I do not call that "useless", and the methodology is via the use of a
    "removable hard drive kit".
    Using two of them, one for the master HD (Primary Master) and the
    other connected as Secondary Master allows the insertion of the "backup"
    HD for cloning when desired.
    It also allows the *immediate* replacement of the master HD when it
    goes bad.
    That methodology allows almost the most dense person to do everything
    - without them ever having to get inside the case (and maybe mess things
    up).
    I take it you have a very low opinion of "the average home user".
    Perhaps you should re-consider...
    Robert Baer, May 21, 2004
    #15
  16. Gigi

    Robert Baer Guest

    Gigi wrote:
    >
    > "Wizard" <> wrote in message news:...
    > > Try DiskImage
    > >

    > Isn't DiskImage also made by Norton? I'm totally turned off by Norton because
    > of their attitude when I was trying to install Ghost. I wouldn't have a Norton
    > product now!
    > > Gigi wrote:
    > > >
    > > > I've about given up on Norton Ghost. It seems the only way I can get ghost

    > to
    > > > work is buy a ps2 keyboard and mouse and I'm wondering if I'd be better off
    > > > spending my money on Acronis True Image. It sounds like TI is much easier

    > for
    > > > the novice to use. Anybody out there with input?


    DiskImage is by PowerQuest.
    I *do* know what you mean by Symantec's crummy attitude, as well as
    useless "help".
    Furthermore, with the exception of the old DOS based products, i have
    yet to fond one that works totally as advertised.
    Robert Baer, May 21, 2004
    #16
  17. Gigi

    Robert Baer Guest

    Michael-NC wrote:
    >
    > "Robert Baer" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > DeMoN LaG wrote:
    > > >
    > > > "mark mandel" <> wrote in
    > > > news:K24rc.3440$:
    > > >
    > > > > I've had mixed results with the Ghost. I had thought that when
    > > > > you've created a backup that you can only restore it to the PC that it
    > > > > was taken from which was the reason that just the other day I was
    > > > > struggling with several attempts to restore a backup of Win 98 S.E.
    > > > > onto my newest PC after all else failed(changes in the motherboard
    > > > > seem to account for this
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > You can restore a ghost image to /any/ machine that has enough disk

    > space
    > > > for it. The problem you were having is you had one set of hardware, and

    > an
    > > > installation from another set of hardware. Operating systems don't like

    > to
    > > > be picked up and moved to different hardware without notice.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > website: http://www.demonlag.com
    > > > AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    > > > email:

    > >
    > > It seems that it is not sane to "backup" or "image"; that the best way
    > > is to *clone* the master drive (ie make an "exact" copy).

    >
    > Image and clone is the same.
    >
    > > That way when the master HD goes bad, the *copy* can !immediately! be
    > > used as the new master.
    > > By *immediate* i mean "less than 30 seconds".

    >
    > Unless you're cloning an OS that is already unstable.
    >
    > I'm not at all impressed with cloning. All I want is my data backed up and
    > backed up redundantly. I find that clones are almost useless to the average
    > home user but very useful in a multi-user environment. Say you've been
    > faithfully cloning your drive every week and your motherboard goes south.
    > Your board is 3 years old and not worth replacing it with an identical one
    > so you buy a newer motherboard and maybe a newer CPU. Your clone is useless,
    > _except_ for the data on it. This is just my preference but I only back up
    > data. I have no need to back up installed apps and an OS.


    Oh, by the way, i have taken a copy/clone HD from a Pentium 2-233MHz
    machine to a Pentium 4-2GHz machine (and vice-versa) with zero problems;
    the only CD i needed was the video driver (Win98SE as well as Win2K)...
    So your statement of "useless" is totally off the wall.
    Robert Baer, May 21, 2004
    #17
  18. Gigi

    Michael-NC Guest

    "Robert Baer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Michael-NC wrote:
    > >
    > > "Robert Baer" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > DeMoN LaG wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > "mark mandel" <> wrote in
    > > > > news:K24rc.3440$:
    > > > >
    > > > > > I've had mixed results with the Ghost. I had thought that when
    > > > > > you've created a backup that you can only restore it to the PC

    that it
    > > > > > was taken from which was the reason that just the other day I was
    > > > > > struggling with several attempts to restore a backup of Win 98

    S.E.
    > > > > > onto my newest PC after all else failed(changes in the motherboard
    > > > > > seem to account for this
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > You can restore a ghost image to /any/ machine that has enough disk

    > > space
    > > > > for it. The problem you were having is you had one set of hardware,

    and
    > > an
    > > > > installation from another set of hardware. Operating systems don't

    like
    > > to
    > > > > be picked up and moved to different hardware without notice.
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > website: http://www.demonlag.com
    > > > > AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    > > > > email:
    > > >
    > > > It seems that it is not sane to "backup" or "image"; that the best

    way
    > > > is to *clone* the master drive (ie make an "exact" copy).

    > >
    > > Image and clone is the same.
    > >
    > > > That way when the master HD goes bad, the *copy* can !immediately!

    be
    > > > used as the new master.
    > > > By *immediate* i mean "less than 30 seconds".

    > >
    > > Unless you're cloning an OS that is already unstable.
    > >
    > > I'm not at all impressed with cloning. All I want is my data backed up

    and
    > > backed up redundantly. I find that clones are almost useless to the

    average
    > > home user but very useful in a multi-user environment. Say you've been
    > > faithfully cloning your drive every week and your motherboard goes

    south.
    > > Your board is 3 years old and not worth replacing it with an identical

    one
    > > so you buy a newer motherboard and maybe a newer CPU. Your clone is

    useless,
    > > _except_ for the data on it. This is just my preference but I only back

    up
    > > data. I have no need to back up installed apps and an OS.

    >
    > I have been making copies aka cloning for over 5 years and have had a
    > number of "master" drives go bad on me.
    > Like i said, the copy became the new master in a rather short period
    > of time.
    > I do not call that "useless", and the methodology is via the use of a
    > "removable hard drive kit".
    > Using two of them, one for the master HD (Primary Master) and the
    > other connected as Secondary Master allows the insertion of the "backup"
    > HD for cloning when desired.
    > It also allows the *immediate* replacement of the master HD when it
    > goes bad.
    > That methodology allows almost the most dense person to do everything
    > - without them ever having to get inside the case (and maybe mess things
    > up).
    > I take it you have a very low opinion of "the average home user".
    > Perhaps you should re-consider...


    I don't know where you come off with that last comment, probably off the
    wall...

    In all my experience, I've had two primary hard drives fail completely. At
    the time they failed, a fresh install of windows and data restore was no big
    deal at all.
    Michael-NC, May 21, 2004
    #18
  19. Gigi

    Michael-NC Guest

    "Robert Baer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Michael-NC wrote:
    > >
    > > "Robert Baer" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > DeMoN LaG wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > "mark mandel" <> wrote in
    > > > > news:K24rc.3440$:
    > > > >
    > > > > > I've had mixed results with the Ghost. I had thought that when
    > > > > > you've created a backup that you can only restore it to the PC

    that it
    > > > > > was taken from which was the reason that just the other day I was
    > > > > > struggling with several attempts to restore a backup of Win 98

    S.E.
    > > > > > onto my newest PC after all else failed(changes in the motherboard
    > > > > > seem to account for this
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > You can restore a ghost image to /any/ machine that has enough disk

    > > space
    > > > > for it. The problem you were having is you had one set of hardware,

    and
    > > an
    > > > > installation from another set of hardware. Operating systems don't

    like
    > > to
    > > > > be picked up and moved to different hardware without notice.
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > website: http://www.demonlag.com
    > > > > AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    > > > > email:
    > > >
    > > > It seems that it is not sane to "backup" or "image"; that the best

    way
    > > > is to *clone* the master drive (ie make an "exact" copy).

    > >
    > > Image and clone is the same.
    > >
    > > > That way when the master HD goes bad, the *copy* can !immediately!

    be
    > > > used as the new master.
    > > > By *immediate* i mean "less than 30 seconds".

    > >
    > > Unless you're cloning an OS that is already unstable.
    > >
    > > I'm not at all impressed with cloning. All I want is my data backed up

    and
    > > backed up redundantly. I find that clones are almost useless to the

    average
    > > home user but very useful in a multi-user environment. Say you've been
    > > faithfully cloning your drive every week and your motherboard goes

    south.
    > > Your board is 3 years old and not worth replacing it with an identical

    one
    > > so you buy a newer motherboard and maybe a newer CPU. Your clone is

    useless,
    > > _except_ for the data on it. This is just my preference but I only back

    up
    > > data. I have no need to back up installed apps and an OS.

    >
    > Oh, by the way, i have taken a copy/clone HD from a Pentium 2-233MHz
    > machine to a Pentium 4-2GHz machine (and vice-versa) with zero problems;
    > the only CD i needed was the video driver (Win98SE as well as Win2K)...
    > So your statement of "useless" is totally off the wall.


    That's _your_ preference, not mine. If you feel comfortably doing that,
    that's also fine, I merely stated _my_ opinion and _my_ preference so you
    can pull your panty's out of your ass any time now Bob.
    Michael-NC, May 21, 2004
    #19
  20. Gigi

    Allen_L Guest

    Re: (Back on Subject) Norton Ghost versus Acronis True Image

    In news:U03rc.3375$,
    Gigi <itchyfeet(no spam)@earthlink.net> typed:
    > I've about given up on Norton Ghost. It seems the only way I can get
    > ghost to work is buy a ps2 keyboard and mouse and I'm wondering if
    > I'd be better off spending my money on Acronis True Image. It sounds
    > like TI is much easier for the novice to use. Anybody out there with
    > input?


    Acronis True Image v.7 is one great program. I used Drive Image and then
    DImage 2002 by Powerquest for years until they came with the new version and
    then I switched to Acronis. Acronis is fast, can do incremental backups and
    mount the image so you can transfer only individual files if needed.

    All the imaging programs, and I thing even Ghost, do backups now from
    Windows so that's not an issue. Acronis is using a form of Linux instead of
    Caldara DOS to do a backup of an operating system partition, which I believe
    is more stable.

    All I can say, is I have recovered one or two crashes of WindowsXP Pro
    (caused by my fiddling), and all went well. True Image will 'put' the image
    anywhere such as removable disks...USB or Firewire and external hard drives
    are no problems for OS restores also. Drive Image now requires a download of
    Microsoft.net (12MB) to run their software, and frankly I never really used
    or liked the interface of Ghost, although it is a good program.

    Don't think you will go wrong with Acronis True Image v.7.xxx and yes it is
    super easy to use...almost runs itself.

    ....Allen
    Allen_L, May 22, 2004
    #20
    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:
    1,634
    Peter C. Bogert
    Dec 7, 2003
  2. vvcd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,310
  3. Ritter197

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

    Ritter197, Sep 24, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,919
  4. john

    Acronis True Image or Norton Ghost

    john, Jan 22, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    386
  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:
    1,515
    All Things Mopar
    Feb 19, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page