Re: Acronis vs Ghost
- From: JD <JD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:53:23 GMT
For the average home user, Image for Windows, from
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/imagew.html is a much smaller (and
less expensive) program and does the job fast and efficiently. It
takes me less than 5 minutes to make an image of my system partition
with about 4 gig of files on.
I have used Acronis and Ghost and had trouble with both. With Image
for Windows, which includes Image for DOS, images can be made whilst
still working in XP and can be written to CD, DVD or a file on another
HD (for the system partition). If saved on a FAT32 HD, image can
be restored using a boot floppy.
JD
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m> wrote:
>
>"_R" <_R@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:0kg4d1pqkdlhp3hebp0demgisigoaoalm2@xxxxxxxxxx
>>I know that anything from Dr Nortenstein's labs must be a multiheaded
>> monster, but aside from that, what are the general tradeoffs between
>> current versions of Norton Ghost and the Acronis tools suite?
>
>Both work fine. I have several customers who use Ghost 2003. They want a
>brand name they recognize They have had no problemsthat couldn't be worked
>around. I use True Image 8.0 myself and prefer it, mostly because I have
>used it more and am used to it. True Image can't format a CD or DVD while
>creating an image and needs 3rd party software installed to do this. Ghost
>doesn't handle oddball partitions (like hidden recovery partitions) as well
>as True Image when cloning drives.
>
>Kerry
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Acronis vs Ghost
- From: frodo
- Re: Acronis vs Ghost
- References:
- Acronis vs Ghost
- From: _R
- Re: Acronis vs Ghost
- From: Kerry Brown
- Acronis vs Ghost
- Prev by Date: Re: Locking Windows XP
- Next by Date: Corrupt Hard Drive, "IRQL_NOT LESS_OR_EQUAL" blue screen
- Previous by thread: Re: Acronis vs Ghost
- Next by thread: Re: Acronis vs Ghost
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|