Several answers to several points:
1. This depends on a variety of factors, e.g. CPU speed, HDD speed, CD burner speed, etc. The systems you work with must be really slow. In Ghost there is no noticeable
difference, whatever method one uses (besides the compression rate, of course).
Ghost can
maccrawj wrote:
Or for $25 I got Acronis True Image which makes the boot disc for you
and can backup directly to CD/DVD. Added coolness factor it will
incorporate other Acronis tools into the boot CD like Disk Director.
Ghost? Partition Magic? BackupExec? All good products sold to a bad
I put one version on a Flash drive as a portable app...
I only use it when I'm at a machine with no MS Office installed...
Works slower this way, and/OR you could put the portable version
on the HD for a no-install test drive...
http://portableapps.com/ These are the NON-u3 types.
If you have
Get the estimate first and see if it is worth the extra risk you will be taking.
I tried it and had some sort of odd problems I can't remember.
Rick Glazier
From: DSinc
j.,
OK. I get this. What is my going forward position now?
Like post-compression.?
I used Ghost until they took too long to support writing the Image files
(when recording originally) TO NTFS drives.
I think I last used the 5x ver... Maybe 5.D?
Acronis captured the moment, offered a GREAT competitive discount/upgrade
and the rest is history...
Rick Glazier
From: Soren
clipped
Several counters to several points... :)
1. Of course speed is variable, but a sector by sector copy must necessarily
be slower in almost all cases. By examining the $MFT (or the equivalent in
other filesystems), you only have to copy sectors that actually have data
you care about, vs. each and
I too switched from Ghost to Acronis. Until somewhere around Acronis 7 (I
think) when Ghost came out with a feature that would keep x number of
generations before rolling off the oldest one. So I switched back. I think
Acronis has that now, but I have stuck with Ghost (now at V14).
Bobby
