Stephen Poley <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote
> Bullwinkle <moose@verizon.net> wrote
>> It took me a long time to get rid of them. The only programs I still
>> run is Ghost and I'm beginning to like Acronis better and Partition
>> Magic one of their most recent buys and I will not upgrade when they
>> come out with a competitive product and sink that great program also.
> I was just composing a post to ask about Ghost. I want something
> that will allow me to do a backup (and restore!) of the entire hard disk
> including Windows. I understand that most backup programs can't do that,
The imagers can.
> and a couple of people, including a sysadmin, have pointed me at Ghost.
I prefer True Image.
> But having also been less than impressed by Symantec,
> I've been hesitating. Does Ghost behave itself?
Not very well. It does the incremental images very unsafely
and some other stuff is bad by design. You cant for example
image a physical drive from the booted CD which is just what
you should do with a system which has a problem, before
doing anything with it. You have to install Ghost to image the
drive and thats very undesirable with a system with a problem.
Anonyma <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote
> Stephen Poley wrote
>> Bullwinkle <moose@verizon.net> wrote
>>> It took me a long time to get rid of them. The only programs I
>>> still run is Ghost and I'm beginning to like Acronis better and
>>> Partition Magic one of their most recent buys and I will not
>>> upgrade when they come out with a competitive product and sink that
>>> great program also.
>> I was just composing a post to ask about Ghost. I want something that
>> will allow me to do a backup (and restore!) of the entire hard disk
>> including Windows. I understand that most backup programs can't do
>> that, and a couple of people, including a sysadmin, have pointed me
>> at Ghost. But having also been less than impressed by Symantec, I've
>> been hesitating. Does Ghost behave itself?
> Ghost is one of the few things Symantec got right.
Its always had some real problems, and they have got worse lately too.
> But then if I'm not mistaken Ghost began life as
> the spawn of an open source community member,
Nope, it was never open source.
> became the defacto standard before Symentec deflowered it,
Correct.
> and was only "absorbed" by Symantec after the original
> creators failed to successfully take it commercial.
That isnt accurate, its just another example of symantec buying stuff up.
> IOW, aside from the pretty GUI it's not really their product.
Thats completely mangled too. The current Ghost is actually PowerQuest's
V2i and Symantec bought PowerQuest to get it and renamed it to Ghost.
> You can pretty much prove this true by observing the way it looks, and works. ;-)
Wrong again. The earlier Ghost required a boot to DOS to work.
The current Ghost runs at the Win level and cant even do an image
creation from the booted CD and the booted CD is PE anyway, not DOS.
In spades with cloning, a complete abortion now because its done at the Win level.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4nir1cFami4lU1@individual.net...
> Stephen Poley <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote
>> and a couple of people, including a sysadmin, have pointed me at Ghost.
>
> I prefer True Image.
Indeed. Computer Shopper (UK tech magazine) gave Acronis True Image a "Best
Buy" award this month. The review was very much in favour of said software
as opposed to the offering from Symantec.
I used to use Ghost for many years, and the earlier versions that ran from a
single floppy were simple to use.
about a year ago, I bought a new PC and decided to upgrade to the latest
version of Ghost (ver 9 I think). It had changed quite a bit from the
previous version I had (2003), and I no longer cared for it at all. I
downloaded a 15-day trial of Acronis Trueimage, and have never gone back.
"Tx2" <this.is.an.inv@lid.address.u.know.com> wrote in message
news:4nirk5F845ktU1@individual.net...
>
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4nir1cFami4lU1@individual.net...
>> Stephen Poley <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote
>
>>> and a couple of people, including a sysadmin, have pointed me at Ghost.
>>
>> I prefer True Image.
>
> Indeed. Computer Shopper (UK tech magazine) gave Acronis True Image a
> "Best Buy" award this month. The review was very much in favour of said
> software as opposed to the offering from Symantec.
>
> I expect the review will eventually appear on the mag's site at
> http://www.compshopper.co.uk/
>
> FWIW, I use (and prefer) True Image.
>
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:36:09 -0400, "hdrdtd" <hdrdtd@comcast.net> wrote:
>I too have been converted to Acronis Trueimage.
>
>I used to use Ghost for many years, and the earlier versions that ran from a
>single floppy were simple to use.
>
>about a year ago, I bought a new PC and decided to upgrade to the latest
>version of Ghost (ver 9 I think). It had changed quite a bit from the
>previous version I had (2003), and I no longer cared for it at all. I
>downloaded a 15-day trial of Acronis Trueimage, and have never gone back.
Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I'll give Trueimage a try.
>>It took me a long time to get rid of them. The only programs I still run is
>>>Ghost and I'm beginning to like Acronis better and Partition Magic one of
>>>their most recent buys and I will not upgrade when they come out with a
>>>competitive product and sink that great program also.
>
>
> I was just composing a post to ask about Ghost. I want something that
> will allow me to do a backup (and restore!) of the entire hard disk
> including Windows. I understand that most backup programs can't do that,
> and a couple of people, including a sysadmin, have pointed me at Ghost.
> But having also been less than impressed by Symantec, I've been
> hesitating. Does Ghost behave itself?
Ghost is now Drive Image under another name. There used to be
Ghost and Drive Image, but Symantic bought out Drive Image, got
rid of their inferior back-up program Ghost, and then renamed
Drive Image to Ghost. It works very well.
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote:
>>> It took me a long time to get rid of them. The only programs I
>>> still run is
>>>> Ghost and I'm beginning to like Acronis better and Partition Magic
>>>> one of their most recent buys and I will not upgrade when they
>>>> come out with a competitive product and sink that great program
>>>> also.
>>
>>
>> I was just composing a post to ask about Ghost. I want something that
>> will allow me to do a backup (and restore!) of the entire hard disk
>> including Windows. I understand that most backup programs can't do
>> that, and a couple of people, including a sysadmin, have pointed me
>> at Ghost. But having also been less than impressed by Symantec, I've
>> been hesitating. Does Ghost behave itself?
> Ghost is now Drive Image under another name.
V2i under another name, actually.
> There used to be Ghost and Drive Image, but Symantic bought out Drive Image, got rid of their
> inferior back-up program Ghost, and then renamed Drive Image to Ghost.
V2i, actually.
> It works very well.
Its rather fucked, actually. You cant even create an image
from the booted CD, or clone the drive from there either,
and it does the incremental images very dangerously too.
Re: Symantec deceptive advertising???? 
Linear Mode
