| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 62152 | 2005-09-28 10:12:00 | Back-Up Solution - suggestions | chiefnz (545) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 391825 | 2005-09-29 03:39:00 | ... I'm not going anywhere near bloody GHOST again, it's the very program that stuffed my system up and that's why I had to clean install. ... Shouldn't that read: "... that's the program I was using when I stuffed my system up ..."? Accuracy is important. :D |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 391826 | 2005-09-29 04:35:00 | There's nothing wrong with Ghost as long as you run it from a boot floppy or boot CD . You had all those problems because you were running it from within Windows . It's about the best cloning and/or imaging program I've tried . Hijacking the post here a little but - OK Pctek and Terry . I haven't paid for Acronis True Image yet (running the trial version) and am interested in your comments about Ghost being faster than Acronis True Image . The price of Ghost is twice that of Acronis True Image but would be worth it for faster speed . I have never been a fan of Nortons other products! Which one to buy?? |
berryb (99) | ||
| 391827 | 2005-09-29 05:36:00 | I haven't tried the latest Acronis, so I can't comment on speed. From memory when I tried Acronis about a year ago it worked ok at producing disk images, but I think, and I may be wrong, it didn't clone a disk. I backup to an identicle hard drive in a caddy using Ghost 2002 clone facility from a boot CD once a week. I prefer to clone as the backup drive can also then be booted if necessary. It also allows me to "play" with things if I want to try or test something out a bit more conveniently than imaging. The other reason I use Ghost is that it came free from PC World as part of System Works :) Acronis 9 is US$49.99 and Ghost 10 with Ghost 2003 is US$69.95 (I think) according to their websites. I'd say for imaging Acronis may be better value. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 391828 | 2005-09-29 06:04:00 | There's nothing wrong with Ghost as long as you run it from a boot floppy or boot CD. You had all those problems because you were running it from within Windows. It's about the best cloning and/or imaging program I've tried.I second that completely. In the past with ghost using the windows interface has been a pain, and running it from a boot CD or FDD was always the way to go. The only problem I've ever had with that was either my own stupid fault, or when I used it to clone ex2 partitions. (which were not really supported) As a backup solution for work (not a small amount of data here, I think for user created data we've broken the 1/2 TB mark now) we use Symantec Livestate accross the network. It's great, we get incrimental image files so we can do a bare metal restore, and it runs without having to worry about locked files or restarting the server. I'm all for backups that require *NO* user action, not swapping a tape, no restart, nothing at all. Schedualed software that goes on the clock, out accross the WAN for offsite if you need. Because then it gets done. Even changing tapes, or simply double clicking an icon is too hard.. it never happens after the first month. and then when (not if, when) something breaks your data is never there. -Qyiet |
qyiet (6730) | ||
| 391829 | 2005-09-29 23:09:00 | Actually I ran it in interatcive mode and this boots the PC into DOS. I wasn't in Windows at all when I did the ghosting. You will see from my post that I could get back into Windows after Ghost DOS session. cheers chiefnz |
chiefnz (545) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||