C
Crispy Critter
Looking to get either Norton Ghost 10 or Acronis True Image 10. Which is
better, and why?
better, and why?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Blueshark
Crispy said:Looking to get either Norton Ghost 10 or Acronis True Image 10. Which is
better, and why?
I think this topic has been discussed ad infinitum in the archives.
BTW I chose Acronis.
M
Mike T.
Crispy Critter said:Looking to get either Norton Ghost 10 or Acronis True Image 10. Which is
better, and why?
I've used both. It's almost too close to call. I like the Acronis Secure
Zone, though. It's useful if you have enough disk space. Essentially, it
creates a partition that windows doesn't see at all, and can store backup
information/images there. Can't get much more secure than that, especially
if the secure zone is on a different physical drive from where you installed
Windows. No virus can touch the secure zone. -Dave
C
Crispy Critter
I've used both. It's almost too close to call. I like the Acronis Secure
Zone, though. It's useful if you have enough disk space. Essentially, it
creates a partition that windows doesn't see at all, and can store backup
information/images there. Can't get much more secure than that, especially
if the secure zone is on a different physical drive from where you installed
Windows. No virus can touch the secure zone. -Dave
Oops, I posted this to the wrong group. Was meant for the storage group.
Found the below review comparing the two and think I'll go with True Image.
Although; someone on a web forum told me their company got corrupt images
with True Image 9 too.
http://www.techsupportalert.com/drive-imaging-reviews.htm
While each program has certain unique features, the core functionality of
both programs is essentially equal. However, True Image¢s overall
functionality, reliability and UI are more robust and more understandable
than Symantec Norton Ghost versions 9 or 10. Most importantly, in my
experience, Symantec¢s Ghost versions 9 & 10 have proven to be unreliable
and my experience with Ghost (really, all of Symantec) technical support
has consistently been dreadful. I would still choose Acronis True Image
over Ghost on functionality and presentation alone; however, on quality of
support alone, I cannot and will not recommend any Symantec program.
D
DGDevin
Looking to get either Norton Ghost 10 or Acronis True Image 10. Which is
better, and why?
Based on user comments on various vendor forums, the latest version of Ghost
seems about as popular and well-received as herpes. But I've yet to see
anyone with a bad word to say about True Image.
T
Timothy Daniels
Crispy Critter said:Looking to get either Norton Ghost 10 or Acronis True Image 10.
Which is better, and why?
If your'e planning on doing cloning of individual partitions
(as opposed to cloning entire drives), Ghost can do it,
True Image can't. Cloning just one partition from several
on a drive, and then to putting it on another drive among what
may also be several existing partitions, is used for archiving
bootable clones of an entire OS (as opposed to an image file
which must be "restored" from its archiving medium to a
hard drive before being bootable). This particular capability
is also found in Casper XP (www.FSSdev.com/products/casperxp/ .
*TimDaniels*
R
Rod Speed
Crispy Critter said:Looking to get either Norton Ghost 10 or Acronis True Image 10. Which is better,
True Image.
and why?
Much more capable from the booted CD, particularly being able to create
images and can clone from the booted CD. This is particularly desirable if
you want to do a safety image of a system thats got problems before working
on it and with cloning. Ghost has to be installed to do both and thats ****ed.
TI does incremental and differential images safely, Ghost doesnt.
TI is generally cheaper.
In short Ghost has no advantages at all except that it can use very
old Ghost images created by Ghost 2003 and even Drive Image.
C
Crispy Critter
If your'e planning on doing cloning of individual partitions
(as opposed to cloning entire drives), Ghost can do it,
True Image can't.
I've gone and bought True Image and it clones just partitions too.
Actually, that's how I'm using it, just make an image file of the system
partition. I'm not insterested in backing up my app and game installs. Plus
I've got two external HDD's for backing up files.
C
Crispy Critter
In short Ghost has no advantages at all except that it can use very
old Ghost images created by Ghost 2003 and even Drive Image.
Yea, I was told that Ghost10 comes with Ghost 2003 so you can make a boot
disk and use it from there. What's this issue with Ghost 2003 and SATA
HDD's though? I've seen posts from people saying it locks up with SATA
HDD's and yet someone else told me they use it with a SATA HDD fine.
R
Rod Speed
Crispy Critter said:Timothy Daniels wrote
I've gone and bought True Image and it clones just partitions too.
Actually, that's how I'm using it, just make an image file of the
system partition. I'm not insterested in backing up my app and game
installs. Plus I've got two external HDD's for backing up files.
He's talking about a true clone of just one partition, not an image of a partition.
Its a terminally stupid way to backup, but he actually is that stupid.
R
Rod Speed
Crispy Critter said:Rod Speed wrote
Yea, I was told that Ghost10 comes with Ghost 2003
so you can make a boot disk and use it from there.
Its not just that, Ghost 9 and 10 will actually restore a Ghost 2003
and other older Ghost images and Drive Image images too.
And you can browse those older images too if you just
want to get a single file etc out of an old image too.
What's this issue with Ghost 2003 and SATA HDD's though?
Just the usual Symantec problem, ****ed code basically.
I've seen posts from people saying it locks up with SATA HDD's
and yet someone else told me they use it with a SATA HDD fine.
It has a problem with some controller chipsets.
The other massive problem with Ghost 2003 is that its a DOS
app and so you need a DOS driver for anything you want to
use, and thats a massive problem with newer hardware.
C
Crispy Critter
He's talking about a true clone of just one partition, not an image of a partition.
OK, what's the difference between the two?
R
Rod Speed
Crispy Critter said:Rod Speed wrote
OK, what's the difference between the two?
A clone makes a clone of the partition onto another drive.
That partition is just like the original.
An image is a file which can be used to recreate the original partition.
T
Timothy Daniels
Crispy Critter said:OK, what's the difference between the two?
A clone is a byte-for-byte copy of the original partition,
which includes the boot sector and can include the HD's
MBR. If it's on a HD, it can be directly bootable. I use
cloning to keep multiple clones on a 2nd internal HD and
on a removable HD for immediate booting in case the
primary HD fails or its files get corrupted. A clone can
be put on another partition on the same HD, but it then
loses its value as a backup of the primary HD, and there
must be trickery used to hide the original partition from the
clone when the clone is started up for the FIRST time.
An image is an ordinary file that has the info necessary
to rebuild (i.e. "restore") a copy of the original partition.
It can be kept on a DVD or CDs or external USB HD or
even on a collection of floppy disks if necessary.
Unless True Image has been extended in its features
recently, to extract one partition from among several on
a HD, one must make an image file of it and then "restore"
it to its destination - a 2-step process. For making a clone
of an ENTIRE HD and then making it the ENTIRE contents
of another HD (as in upgrading to a larger HD), True Image
is fine.
*TimDaniels*
M
Mike T.
Timothy Daniels said:If your'e planning on doing cloning of individual partitions
(as opposed to cloning entire drives), Ghost can do it,
True Image can't.
You're wrong. When you ask true image to clone, the first screen that pops
up asks you what you want to clone. You can check off a drive if you want,
or just check off individual partitions. -Dave
A
Anna
Mike T. said:You're wrong. When you ask true image to clone, the first screen that
pops up asks you what you want to clone. You can check off a drive if you
want, or just check off individual partitions. -Dave
Dave (or is it Mike?):
Tim Daniels is correct. There is no capability in ATI 9 or 10 versions to
directly clone individual partitions from one HDD to another HDD. There is
no capability to "check off individual partitions" as it relates to the disk
cloning process of ATI. It's an all-or-nothing proposition.
As Tim has pointed out, there is the capability of backing up & restoring
individual HDD partitions using the ATI program through the program's disk
imaging operations.
Anna
T
Timothy Daniels
\ | /
oo
0
Hi, Anna. I haven't seen your postings in .storage
or microsoft.public.windowsxp.general or .setup, and
I thought you'd given up on Usenet. Glad to see you
back in the fray.
*TimDaniels*
oo
0
Hi, Anna. I haven't seen your postings in .storage
or microsoft.public.windowsxp.general or .setup, and
I thought you'd given up on Usenet. Glad to see you
back in the fray.
*TimDaniels*
C
Crispy Critter
A clone is a byte-for-byte copy of the original partition,
which includes the boot sector and can include the HD's
MBR. If it's on a HD, it can be directly bootable. I use
cloning to keep multiple clones on a 2nd internal HD and
on a removable HD for immediate booting in case the
primary HD fails or its files get corrupted. A clone can
be put on another partition on the same HD, but it then
loses its value as a backup of the primary HD, and there
must be trickery used to hide the original partition from the
clone when the clone is started up for the FIRST time.
An image is an ordinary file that has the info necessary
to rebuild (i.e. "restore") a copy of the original partition.
It can be kept on a DVD or CDs or external USB HD or
even on a collection of floppy disks if necessary.
Unless True Image has been extended in its features
recently, to extract one partition from among several on
a HD, one must make an image file of it and then "restore"
it to its destination - a 2-step process. For making a clone
of an ENTIRE HD and then making it the ENTIRE contents
of another HD (as in upgrading to a larger HD), True Image
is fine.
*TimDaniels*
Thanks for the clarification. I've got Ghost 2002, Ghost 2003 and True
Image 9.0 and 10.0 so I'm good to go. I've just never bothered doing a
clone, just always make image file of system partiton.
T
Timothy Daniels
Crispy Critter said:I've got Ghost 2002, Ghost 2003 and True
Image 9.0 and 10.0 so I'm good to go. I've just never
bothered doing a clone, just always make image file
of system partiton.
Depending on which utility you use, if it gives you
the option, tell it to mark the clone's partition "active"
and to copy the MBR to the other HD.
Then, when the cloning is complete, don't boot up
the clone immediately to test it. As Rod Speed first
cautioned a couple years ago, disconnect the original
OS's HD so the new clone won't be able to see it.
THEN reboot the PC. The clone's HD will automatically
become the boot drive (if it's next in the HD boot order*),
and its MBR will get control. Since the clone partition is
marked "active", it's boot sector will get control, and since
it has the original partition's boot files, the boot.ini entries
will direct the loading of the clone OS. After testing the OS
to your satisfaction, you can shut down and re-connect the
original HD. Thereafter, you can boot to either OS by resetting
the HD boot order* in the BIOS, or by adding an entry in
the boot.ini file of the original's "active" partition - almost
always the partition containing the OS, and it's OK if either
running OS can see the other OS's partition. Even if the
the original OS sees the new unbooted clone it's OK.
Just don't let the new clone see its "parent" when the new
clone first starts up. Since the clone thinks it's the original
OS, it will name its own partition the same as the original
did - usuall "C:" - and it will call the original's partition by
some other name. If neither OS has shortcuts referring
to other partitions, this renaming is not a problem.
*HD boot order
The *default* HD boot order in a PATA system is
Master on ch. 0,
Slave on ch. 0,
Master on ch.1,
Slave on ch. 1.
The BIOS looks down that list and takes the HD highest
on the list to pass control to that HD's MBR.
But... most BIOSes allow the user to rearrange that order
via keyboard input.
Whatever the order is - either default or custom - it defines
the meaning of "rdisk(x)" in the boot.ini file, where "x"
represents the displacement from the top of the HD boot
order. That is, "rdisk(0)" represents the top HD, "rdisk(1)"
represents the next HD, etc.
In the case of a SATA system, "rdisk()" represents the
SATA channel no.
In the case of a mixed PATA/SATA system, you'll have
to experiment to find the "rdisk()" scheme.
*TimDaniels*
R
Rod Speed
Timothy Daniels said:Depending on which utility you use, if it gives you
the option, tell it to mark the clone's partition "active"
and to copy the MBR to the other HD.
Then, when the cloning is complete, don't boot up
the clone immediately to test it. As Rod Speed first
cautioned a couple years ago, disconnect the original
OS's HD so the new clone won't be able to see it.
THEN reboot the PC. The clone's HD will automatically
become the boot drive (if it's next in the HD boot order*),
and its MBR will get control. Since the clone partition is
marked "active", it's boot sector will get control, and since
it has the original partition's boot files, the boot.ini entries
will direct the loading of the clone OS. After testing the OS
to your satisfaction, you can shut down and re-connect the
original HD. Thereafter, you can boot to either OS by resetting
the HD boot order* in the BIOS, or by adding an entry in
the boot.ini file of the original's "active" partition - almost
always the partition containing the OS, and it's OK if either
running OS can see the other OS's partition. Even if the
the original OS sees the new unbooted clone it's OK.
Just don't let the new clone see its "parent" when the new
clone first starts up. Since the clone thinks it's the original
OS, it will name its own partition the same as the original
did - usuall "C:" - and it will call the original's partition by
some other name. If neither OS has shortcuts referring
to other partitions, this renaming is not a problem.
*HD boot order
The *default* HD boot order in a PATA system is
Master on ch. 0,
Slave on ch. 0,
Master on ch.1,
Slave on ch. 1.
The BIOS looks down that list and takes the HD highest on the list to pass control to that HD's
MBR.
But... most BIOSes allow the user to rearrange that order
via keyboard input.
Whatever the order is - either default or custom - it defines
the meaning of "rdisk(x)" in the boot.ini file, where "x"
represents the displacement from the top of the HD boot
order. That is, "rdisk(0)" represents the top HD, "rdisk(1)"
represents the next HD, etc.
No it doesnt, that's just what happens with your ****ed bios.
In the case of a SATA system, "rdisk()" represents the SATA channel no.
Not necessarily.