Ghost or Acronis?

[Antarctica]

I have been reading a lot on the Forum about Image Backup, and I still
hesitate on which one I should acquire.:-\

May be someone that already tried both and could tell me which one is the
safest to use.

I am a little bit afraid now because I did tred RestoreIT 7.0 and it screw up my
hardrive when partitioning. (durind installation) I had to format, could not even boot in safe mode anymore...

Thanks for your help.

[starfish_001]

I would go for True Image 8. Simple and Quick to use, the Support is also very good compared to Norton.

I used to use Drive Image and Ghost. But changes to TI at version 7. Have not tried version 9 don't need the features offered

The last two versions of Norton have gotten big and slow. I prefer a package that can also image outside of windows - I believe that Norton can now only restore outside of windows but not make an Image.

I use TI for bare metal and data imaging and Raxco First defence for day to day windows environment backup - kinda imaging crossed with a boot manager.


You could take a look at http://www.drivesnapshot.de/en/ This has a good rep.

[Antarctica]

Thank you starfish_001.
Can we still get Acronis V8.0? I look on the site, and it is True Image 9.0. From what I could see, lots of people ars saying to avoid version 9.0.:-\

[starfish_001]

Not sure - probably available from a reseller - or you could buy 9 and ask support for a version 8 download they are very helpful. Drop them a mail - of course v9 might work fine for you.

Some people have had no probs with 9 others seem to have had a bad time with it.

[SSK]

Before you go Acronis, take a look at: http://terabyteunlimited.com/index.html

After using Acronis for two years, this is my newest pet ;D

Why? Simple, straight forward and it can handle back-up to DVD!

[Antarctica]

SSK, thank you, I took a look at theier site, look interesting.:)

Have you tried to restore you PC yet? Is there a way to verify the image
after you saved it to a DVD or CD?

Thanks

[nicM]

If you are interested in TI, hurry up, you can get it at 40% lower price till january 2nd

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=111394
(http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=111394)

that's what I did, and TI 9 seems to be working for me so far :)

Cheers,
nicM

[nick s]

Hi Antarctica,

I use Terabyte's BootIt NG as well as Image for Windows and DOS. When I am heavily beta testing, I average about 15 restores per week. Overall, I have done about 500 restores with Terabyte products, with no failures.

Nick

Edit: that includes restoring from DVD, external USB HD, but primarily from a second internal HD.

[Antarctica]

-{ Quote: "Hi Antarctica,

I use Terabyte's BootIt NG as well as Image for Windows and DOS. When I am heavily beta testing, I average about 15 restores per week. Overall, I have done about 500 restores with Terabyte products, with no failures.

Nick

Edit: that includes restoring from DVD, external USB HD, but primarily from a second internal HD." }-

Hi nick s, thanks.

Sounds good, I will give it a try over the week-end.:)

[SSK]

I do a little less restoring (but once or twice week is no exception :)), but I can confirm what nick s posted. No problems restoring from DVD, internal HD. Verifying can be don through the program or from Restore / Boot disk.

Please read their site and documentation, and you should be good to go!

[Bob D]

I recall PCWorld's comparison couple months back:
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,123202,00.asp

[dukebluedevil]

Antarctica - I have restored my system probably only about 5-6 times from CD/HD using Terabyte's Image for Windows/DOS and each time it has worked great. Its a very simple program to use. They are also constantly updating it too to make it better. Sometimes a couple of times a month. There are also a bunch of free add-on tools as well that they provide. http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/utilities.html

[Antarctica]

Thank you all for your good advice.

I have downloaded Image for Windows from TeraByte and so far I like what I
see. Very simple program, easy to use, that's exactly what I like.:)

I just perform my first backup and it went flawlessy.:)

[Howard Kaikow]

-{ Quote: "Thank you starfish_001.
Can we still get Acronis V8.0? I look on the site, and it is True Image 9.0. From what I could see, lots of people ars saying to avoid version 9.0.:-\" }-

TI 8 is still sold by lots of online vendors, rather it is hard to find TI 9.

Note that TI 9, even with build 2323, has had a lot of reported problems, so I;m holding off until I see the next build.

Note that I purchased Ghost 10 last month.
Don't like it at all, not to mention, it adds a noticeable load to the system.
Ghost 10 added an incremental update capability, but, as far as I am concerned, it was misdesigned and doesn't solve the needs of most users. I'd point you to thread that I started om this topic, but the Ghost forums have been unreachable (by me) tonight.

I uninstalled Ghost 10 a couple of days ago, fortunately, the cost was 0$ after rebates.

So, I will continue to use Retrospect until I am satisfied that something better is available. At this time, Ghost 10 does not provide proper incremental updating capability, and TI 9 is not stable.

[Howard Kaikow]

-{ Quote: "Thank you all for your good advice.

I have downloaded Image for Windows from TeraByte and so far I like what I
see. Very simple program, easy to use, that's exactly what I like.:)

I just perform my first backup and it went flawlessy.:)" }-

I just took a look at the Terabyte Image web site.
How does it compare with Ghost 10 and TI 9 in terms of functionality?

Seems as tho, in addition to Terabyte Image product (shareware), it is
necessary to also install add-ons for restoring individual files and
requires using an add-on for BartPE to build a restore CD.

I don't like the idea of having those critical features not being
integrated.
When there's a problem, it may be more difficult to get a fix.

[bigc73542]

everyone here seems to have their preferences and i am no different, I have had very good luck with Ghost 9 2005 . I had a pretty bad experience with TI.

[Howard Kaikow]

-{ Quote: "everyone here seems to have their preferences and i am no different, I have had very good luck with Ghost 9 2005 . I had a pretty bad experience with TI." }-

Ghost 10 is a different critter due to its addition of recovery point sets and its implementation, tho inadequate, of incremental updates.

[Freegoo]

Image for Windows is a fine product, extremely stable and simple to use like a backup program should be. Unfortunately, it doesn't do incremental backups which I find real nice for doing daily backups to an external hard drive. Using the Dos Mode boot disc kind of sucked as I had issues with my external drive. Barts PE worked ok, but was a pain to setup. Right now I'm using Acronis which seems pretty stable on my computer - but no DVD writing abilities (which is pretty weak for a backup utility imo). I still use Image 4 Windows to do my occasional backups to DVD, like I said it's a good product - very good support, cheap, and liberal upgrade policy. If the trial does everything you need, it's an excellent choice. Just thought I would point out some of the limitations I ran across.

[BJStone]

I prefer Ghost. I'm using it a couple of years, it never ever let me down. A friend of mine uses Acronis, he has had some trouble with it regarding restoring an image a couple of times. He switched to Ghost. BTW : I'm using an older version (2002) , I can't speak about the newer versions : I don't have used those.

[Antarctica]

-{ Quote: "I just took a look at the Terabyte Image web site.
How does it compare with Ghost 10 and TI 9 in terms of functionality?

Seems as tho, in addition to Terabyte Image product (shareware), it is
necessary to also install add-ons for restoring individual files and
requires using an add-on for BartPE to build a restore CD.

I don't like the idea of having those critical features not being
integrated.
When there's a problem, it may be more difficult to get a fix." }-

Howard Kaikow,

I don't know yet if it would be a issue to restore a image, but I don't think so. The only plugin I had to install was PHYLock and it went very smooth.

Over the weekend I will install the demo on my old PC and try to restore
a image.

But so far I think it's a nice program and so easy to use. Sure there is no incremental function in it like Frigoo mention in is post.

This is not a issue for me because I don't make changes or add new programs so often. Also it took me only one hour 15 minutes to backup my all hardrive on 5 CD's.:)

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "I just took a look at the Terabyte Image web site.
How does it compare with Ghost 10 and TI 9 in terms of functionality?

Seems as tho, in addition to Terabyte Image product (shareware), it is
necessary to also install add-ons for restoring individual files and
requires using an add-on for BartPE to build a restore CD.

I don't like the idea of having those critical features not being
integrated.
When there's a problem, it may be more difficult to get a fix." }-

Howard

I purchased IFW, and Image for DOS came with it. It had everything necessary to build the recovery CD. I don't know if what came with it was BartPE, but whatever it was it was quick and painless to make the CD and it works great. I certainly didn't have to go and find BartPE to do it.

Pete

[Howard Kaikow]

I too have heard good things about Image 4 windoze, but:

1. It requires BartPE to create a recovery disk, and BartPE disk can only be created in Win XP. Many folkes, including moi, use Win 2000.

2. Although there are needs to make so called "images", most folkes really do need incremental backup. I run incremental backup at least once per day, usually 2 or 3 times, to save work. RElying on a 3rd party add-on is not satisfactory as one cannot easily co-ordinate updates/supporrt issues for that feature.

Regarding Ghost and TI:

Ghost 10 is an entirely different critter than earlier versions, so experiences with earlier versions are not really relevant. Ghost 10 added an incremental backup, but they did it all wrong, at least for the masses.

Most folkes likely want to use a backup strategy such as the following:

1. Create multiple backup sets, each on separate media, so if one goes bad, one can recover from next most recent backup set.

2. Use incremental backups to save space and time.

For expository reasons, let's ASSuME that we use two USB external drives as backup media, never having more than one drive connected at a time (to protect from power disasters).

We then create a full backup on each drive and then alternate drives, at convenient intervals, adding incremental backups to each backup set.

In the case of Ghost 10, incremental backups can be done only with Recovery Point Sets ("RPS"), but the implementation in Ghost seems counter to the above backup strategy.

It seems that Ghost uses a structure based on the vsnap.idx file on each drive to keep track of changes on the drive.

So, if we create a base RPS, subsequent incremental backups can be accomplished because Ghost "knows" what sectors have changed.

This mechanism likely works if you use only one backup set, but if you swap media, and create another RPS on the alternate USB drive, it seems that the mechanism breaks down as the vsnap.idx would then be outdated for one, or the other, backup sets.

The apparent inability to use more than one RPS seems to render useless incremental backups in Ghost, as one one would have to create a new base RPS each time one swapped a USB drive and wished to do an incremental backup because Ghost would not know what sectors have really changed since the most recenent backup to the CURRENTLY mounted RPS.

TI 9, if the ever get out the bugs, IMNSHO, would be a better product than Ghost 10. Acronis does have an active support dforum at Wilders, which is a plus.

[nick s]

Hi Howard,

Image for Windows does not "require" BartPE to build a restore CD/DVD. Rather, I believe Terabyte provides an optional plugin for users of BartPE for imaging and restore purposes. With IFW, imaging to a CD/DVD in itself creates a self-booting restore disk. That is all you need.

The free PHYLock add-on is not strictly required, but, among other things, it gives you the added ability to write an image to the same partition you are imaging from within Windows.

The free TBIView add-on is a simple context-menu tool that lets you explore and extract files from Terabyte images on any other computer without having to purchase another license. Its a nice, non-bloated tool that adds portability to Terabyte images, especially for owners of multiple computers.

Nick

[Global Force]

Hi Nick,

May I ask if you purchased the 'bundled' package and if so was it through RegNow?
Thank's.


GF

[pcalvert]

I have True Image 8.0. Although I was initially impressed with it, when I restored from an image, three programs no longer worked and had to be reinstalled or restored from a separate backup that I had made. The image file verified as being fine, but it obviously was not. Or maybe the image file was fine, but the TI software that does the actual restoring is flawed.

I haven't tried restoring a different image, so I don't really know if this is typical or not. But it does not inspire much confidence in the product. To be safe, I will probably buy Ghost 9, and use Ghost and TI together. While it's a bit of a nuisance, when it comes to backups, redundancy is a good thing.

Phil

[Howard Kaikow]

-{ Quote: "I have True Image 8.0. Although I was initially impressed with it, when I restored from an image, three programs no longer worked and had to be reinstalled or restored from a separate backup that I had made. The image file verified as being fine, but it obviously was not. Or maybe the image file was fine, but the TI software that does the actual restoring is flawed.

I haven't tried restoring a different image, so I don't really know if this is typical or not. But it does not inspire much confidence in the product. To be safe, I will probably buy Ghost 9, and use Ghost and TI together. While it's a bit of a nuisance, when it comes to backups, redundancy is a good thing.

Phil" }-

The only safe, tried and true, backups are those done with file based backups that verify by comparing files when backing up. For desktop use, Retrospect may be best.

I would not count on programs such as Ghost or TI for incremental backups.
Ghost 10 has a shoddy implementation, and TI 9 is still too buggy.

I described the incremental backup issue for Ghost 10 elsewhere in this thread. Ghost 10 might be fine if all you want to do is independent recovery sets, but many/most folkes really do need incremental backups.

[pcalvert]

By the way, there is also a free solution you may want to consider:

SystemRescueCd
http://www.sysresccd.org/

[pcalvert]

-{ Quote: "The only safe, tried and true, backups are those done with file based backups that verify by comparing files when backing up. For desktop use, Retrospect may be best.

I would not count on programs such as Ghost or TI for incremental backups.
Ghost 10 has a shoddy implementation, and TI 9 is still too buggy.

I described the incremental baxckup issue for Ghost 10 elsewhere in this thread. Ghost 10 might be fine if all you want to do is independent recovery sets, but many/most folkes really do need incremental backups." }-


I agree. I don't consider the use of imaging programs alone as sufficient for backup purposes. For full backups I use BASK, and for more frequent backing up of documents and email I use EZBack-it-up. I have also started using Back4Win to create compressed archives that I will burn to CD-R disks. BTW, all three of those backup programs are freeware.

Phil

[pvsurfer]

I started out using Norton Ghost long before Symantec acquired Norton products and while somewhat awkward to use it was very reliable. After Symantec later acquired PowerQuest, they merged Ghost with PQ's DriveImage and imho, it then became a bloated 'poc'.

I then bought Acronis True Image 7 for home-use and I haven't looked back, although I'm now using the last build of TI8. I've found True Image to be easy enough to use so as to not make me shudder at the thought of having to back up, very fast, stable and reliable. I'll move on to TI9 after it gets over its 'infancy problems'.

At the office, where our computers contain 'mission-critical' data (representing our livelihood), we use EMC's (formerly Dantz) Retrospect. We have been relying on it for the past 10 years and it has never let us down. Unlike most other file-by-file backup software, it is capable of backing up open system files and it's error-logging is very revealing/useful. Retrospect gets a bad rap for it's GUI and not being 'user-friendly' (I find it very straight-forward to use). The only improvement I would definitely like to see is a faster engine (Retrospect's 'progressive' backups take way too long)!

[Reggie]

I also am a past fan of Ghost and as PVSURFER said, it really is bloatware and recent versions also require .NET Framework.

I then tried True Image, but had too many problems with it. The forum here on Wilders was very helpful, but for whatever reason, my problems with it wouldn't go away (it is very configuation-sensitive)! On top of that, it doesn't natively support DVD (you have to use a packet-writing tool, like InCD).

I'm now using Backup MyPC which works great (no problems whatsoever). Very highly recommmended. :)

[nick s]

-{ Quote: "Hi Nick,

May I ask if you purchased the 'bundled' package and if so was it through RegNow?
Thank's.


GF" }-Hi GF,

BootIt NG licenses were my first purchases because I needed the additional boot-manager functionality for my desktops. Later on I added a couple of IFW licenses. So I never went the bundle route. In the future, though, I will. All of my purchases have been through SWREG.

Nick

[controler]

Happy New Year ;D

SOme of my first beta's were Ghost and Drive Image. both worked from a DOS
bootable floppy using IBM DOS. I have not used Image software since the 90's but do know alot of big buisness relies on ghost.
Currently I use Terabyte's BootIt NG for my needs. I use it on PC that already have Windows installed but want Windows Shared Computer toolkit added.

Terabyte's BootIt NG is some very powerful software indeed.

Did I say Happy New Year? ;D
I am on my first burbon now & you will see my typing deteriorate as the night progresses.

controler

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: "Happy New Year ;D

SOme of my first beta's were Ghost and Drive Image. both worked from a DOS
bootable floppy using IBM DOS. I have not used Image software since the 90's but do know alot of big buisness relies on ghost.
Currently I use Terabyte's BootIt NG for my needs. I use it on PC that already have Windows installed but want Windows Shared Computer toolkit added.

Terabyte's BootIt NG is some very powerful software indeed.

Did I say Happy New Year? ;D
I am on my first burbon now & you will see my typing deteriorate as the night progresses.

controler" }-Get a designated typer if your too loaded. ;D

[controler]

Hammer GREAT IDEA but I hope they can understand what I am saying ;D

Yahoo puuuttt thee CDer in that ting over der.

[Antarctica]

Happy New year controler.

Cheers.:)

[Peter2150]

Howard

I totally agree with you about "incrementals". For the most part I am mainly interested in "backup" stuff to protect me from hard drive disaster. Even using Retrospect not only are the progressive backups slow, but the files keep piling up, and eventually you have to do a recycle backup(even slower). So now I use IFW and image once a week. Don't care about incrementals, I just delete the old files and reimage. For daily updates, I use FDISR archives on external drives. They remain constant in size, and refreshing them takes about 2 minutes. The disaster recovery isn't quite as easy as an image, but it is tried and true. I also you a directory synchronization program to keep mydocs current on the external drive. Again the files don't pile up. Also tried and true.

Pete

[Global Force]

Nick,

I've been interested in IFD for some time now reading the positive, no frill's review's from the like's of yourself and nod, now ready to take the step toward's purchase. The "outside of windows" as nod explained alway's did carry the most appeal for me. Thank's again for taking the time to reply.


GF

[Howard Kaikow]

-{ Quote: "By the way, there is also a free solution you may want to consider:

SystemRescueCd
http://www.sysresccd.org/" }-

IMNSHO, FREE software is approriate ONLY for certain types of applications, unless there is a wide development base such as for Firefox and Thunderbird.

I'm not about to have my backups depend on free/shareware, no matter how good the programmers may be.

This type of app really should be from a company with a track record and a reasonable chance of being around for some time.

[bigc73542]

-{ Quote: "Ghost 10 is a different critter due to its addition of recovery point sets and its implementation, tho inadequate, of incremental updates." }-


Ghost 9 has incremental updates.;) I have them scheduled to update at predetermined times

[Howard Kaikow]

-{ Quote: "I started out using Norton Ghost long before Symantec acquired Norton products and while somewhat awkward to use it was very reliable. After Symantec later acquired PowerQuest, they merged Ghost with PQ's DriveImage and imho, it then became a bloated 'poc'.

I then bought Acronis True Image 7 for home-use and I haven't looked back, although I'm now using the last build of TI8. I've found True Image to be easy enough to use so as to not make me shudder at the thought of having to back up, very fast, stable and reliable. I'll move on to TI9 after it gets over its 'infancy problems'.

At the office, where our computers contain 'mission-critical' data (representing our livelihood), we use EMC's (formerly Dantz) Retrospect. We have been relying on it for the past 10 years and it has never let us down. Unlike most other file-by-file backup software, it is capable of backing up open system files and it's error-logging is very revealing/useful. Retrospect gets a bad rap for it's GUI and not being 'user-friendly' (I find it very straight-forward to use). The only improvement I would definitely like to see is a faster engine (Retrospect's 'progressive' backups take way too long)!" }-

The other rap against Retrospect is that it costs more than, say, Ghost (which is often free, or costs very little, after rebates, heck, I paid 0$ after rebates).

Retrospect (I still use version 6.5) could indeed use performance improvements.

When I first got Retrospect in June 2003, I did a full backup using Retrospect and BUMP (version 4.9.42.0 is what I now have installed). BUMP was about twice as fast as Retrospect.

Of course, Retrospect does do a bit more, but that should not be enough to double the required time.

To get an idea of the MINIMUM time a backup should take, you could run the program at http://www.standards.com/index.html?GetFileTypeDistribution.
No full backup program can run even that fast.

Another rap is the needlessly difficult GUI, along with inadequate documentation.

But Retrospect does get the job done, and if you shop around the internet, you can find discounts. Don't buy directly from Dantz, unless they happen to be offerring a special deal.

I've been looking for a reason to not use Retrospect, but I cannot find a reason.

[Howard Kaikow]

-{ Quote: "I also am a past fan of Ghost and as PVSURFER said, it really is bloatware and recent versions also require .NET Framework.

I then tried True Image, but had too many problems with it. The forum here on Wilders was very helpful, but for whatever reason, my problems with it wouldn't go away (it is very configuation-sensitive)! On top of that, it doesn't natively support DVD (you have to use a packet-writing tool, like InCD).

I'm now using Backup MyPC which works great (no problems whatsoever). Very highly recommmended. :)" }-

Ghost 10 adds noticeable overhead to my system. I uninstalled the critter a few daze ago, and have noticed the improvement.

I have not used BUMP since version 4.9.42.0. If the latest version still relies on the old tape-based backup format, it is a quite obsolete producy, Retrospect is a better choice.

[Howard Kaikow]

-{ Quote: "Get a designated typer if your too loaded. ;D" }-

Computers have device drivers, but not designated drivers, so hide the car keys.

[Howard Kaikow]

-{ Quote: "Howard

I totally agree with you about "incrementals". For the most part I am mainly interested in "backup" stuff to protect me from hard drive disaster. Even using Retrospect not only are the progressive backups slow, but the files keep piling up, and eventually you have to do a recycle backup(even slower). So now I use IFW and image once a week. Don't care about incrementals, I just delete the old files and reimage. For daily updates, I use FDISR archives on external drives. They remain constant in size, and refreshing them takes about 2 minutes. The disaster recovery isn't quite as easy as an image, but it is tried and true. I also you a directory synchronization program to keep mydocs current on the external drive. Again the files don't pile up. Also tried and true.

Pete" }-

If I did a backup only once per day, I would use an image backup instead of Retrospect. Retrospect could be used as a once per day backup, but, and I do have a big butt, it takes Retrospect 11.5+ hours to backup and compare all 10 logical drives on 3 hard disks, and my disks are only about half-full, so this time will get too long even for an overnight backup.

But I must do incrementals, as I feel insecure backing up development projects only to a ZIP drive between real backups.

See http://www.standards.com/index.html?GetDiskSpaceUsed

I back up only C-D and F-M, as E is a ZIP drive, R is a CD-ROM drive, Q is a VD-RW drive, and N is the USB backup drive.


Start: 20:42:28 on 31 December 2005
Drive Total Bytes Free Bytes Available Bytes Used Bytes Used(%)
A
C 3825455104 703627264 703627264 3121827840 81.61%
D 5253865472 853868544 853868544 4399996928 83.75%
E 100431872 54878208 54878208 45553664 45.36%
F 8570400768 1090224128 1090224128 7480176640 87.28%
G 8570384384 1639346176 1639346176 6931038208 80.87%
H 1173872640 464461824 464461824 709410816 60.43%
I 8570384384 4638593024 4638593024 3931791360 45.88%
J 8570400768 2171883520 2171883520 6398517248 74.66%
K 8570384384 5222150144 5222150144 3348234240 39.07%
L 8570400768 8271106048 8271106048 299294720 3.49%
M 2413461504 1457737728 1457737728 955723776 39.60%
N 81956655104 47205892096 47205892096 34750763008 42.40%
Q
R
Total 146146097152 73773768704 73773768704 72372328448 49.52%
End: 20:42:30 on 31 December 2005

[Howard Kaikow]

-{ Quote: "Ghost 9 has incremental updates.;) I have them scheduled to update at predetermined times" }-

Never used Ghpst 9, but Ghost 10's implementation of incremental updates is clearly misdesigned.

[Heco]

A very good solution to consider and it's FREE:
http://www.runtime.org/dixml.htm
I use it more frequently than ATI.
Regards;D

[pcalvert]

-{ Quote: "IMNSHO, FREE software is approriate ONLY for certain types of applications, unless there is a wide development base such as for Firefox and Thunderbird.

I'm not about to have my backups depend on free/shareware, no matter how good the programmers may be.

This type of app really should be from a company with a track record and a reasonable chance of being around for some time." }-


I agree with you. But for some people the choice is between a free program and none at all. It was for those people that my post was intended. As for the potential unreliability of free backup software, much of that risk can be mitigated via redundancy. In other words, people using free programs should make several backups using several different programs.

Phil

[annonymous]

I've had the same issues with both Ghost and True Image. I now use an better and much faster solution. The utility is called RollBack Rx (www.rollbacksoftware.com).

[Howard Kaikow]

-{ Quote: "I agree with you. But for some people the choice is between a free program and none at all. It was for those people that my post was intended. As for the potential unreliability of free backup software, much of that risk can be mitigated via redundancy. In other words, people using free programs should make several backups using several different programs.

Phil" }-

Folkes do have to choose which programs are worth paying for, and the cost associated from using a program that might not get the job done, or might not have wide enough user experience, or ...

Backup is just too important to not be willing to pay for a program.
Also, one needs to use a backup from a vendor with a track record in such programs.

Not that I like the program, but Ghost is regularly available for 0$, or very little, AFTER rebates.

Retrospect can be obtained fron online vendors at much less than the price quoted at Dantz's web site.

TI is not very expensive, no matter where you buy it. If Acronis had any sense, they would increase their market share by getting more online vendors to carry the latest version if their product and aggressively advertising lower/rebate prices The price elasticity of demand for software is very high (if you did not under stand this statement, read a good economics text).

I would also be wary of using backup programs bundled with other programs, seemingly making them look free. Most, if not all, of those just aren't worth using, or are watered down versions of the real thing, or are from vendors without a real track record in backup software.

[pcalvert]

-{ Quote: "
Backup is just too important to not be willing to pay for a program.
Also, one needs to use a backup from a vendor with a track record in such programs.

Not that I like the program, but Ghost is regularly available for 0$, or very little, AFTER rebates.

Retrospect can be obtained fron online vendors at much less than the price quoted at Dantz's web site.
" }-

Many web sites sell OEM and/or slightly outdated software cheap. Sometimes these are really good deals because the older version is much better than the newer one. Last year I purchased a retail box version of Symantec Norton Systemworks 2001 for $10 ($5 plus $5 shipping). It doesn't work with Win XP, but I don't care. It may be several years old, but it was the last version with lots of positive comments from users. Later versions had fewer positive comments and negative ones began appearing.

Even though I got a good deal, I am not sure that buying it was such a good idea. I had read that installing Symantec anything (but especially Systemworks) is a good way to screw up your computer. But I didn't totally believe it. After purchasing Systemworks 2001, I found out the hard way that it's true.

Phil

[Howard Kaikow]

-{ Quote: "Many web sites sell OEM and/or slightly outdated software cheap. Sometimes these are really good deals because the older version is much better than the newer one. Last year I purchased a retail box version of Symantec Norton Systemworks 2001 for $10 ($5 plus $5 shipping). It doesn't work with Win XP, but I don't care. It may be several years old, but it was the last version with lots of positive comments from users. Later versions had fewer positive comments and negative ones began appearing.

Even though I got a good deal, I am not sure that buying it was such a good idea. I had read that installing Symantec anything (but especially Systemworks) is a good way to screw up your computer. But I didn't totally believe it. After purchasing Systemworks 2001, I found out the hard way that it's true.

Phil" }-

Most sites that sell OEM software are doing so illegally.

In any case, for Symantec and some other products, there are regularly deals that offer low cost, or 0$, AFTER rebates.

In the past two months or so, I have purchased:

1. Suffit Deluxe 10: 0$ after rebate.
2. Ghost 10: 0$ after rebate, but I'm not going to use the product.
3. NAV 2006 (3 license edition): $14.99 after rebate, but I will not use it until late August 2006 whem my NAV 2005 1 year is up.

[dp4459]

try http://www.drivesnapshot.com

really TRY IT.
It works.

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "try http://www.drivesnapshot.com

really TRY IT.
It works." }-

I would be very cautious about this program unless they have made significant improvements in the recovery process. Imaging from windows was a piece of cake and fast. But the recovery process from the boot disk would be impossible for a technical newbie. I bought the full version, even getting the CD hoping recovery would be easier with it. It now sits idly in my drawer. Comparing Drivesnapshot with Image for Windows, IFW is the hands down winner, because of the difference in the recovery process.

Pete

[ILikeLemonPie]

-{ Quote: "I would be very cautious about this program unless they have made significant improvements in the recovery process. Imaging from windows was a piece of cake and fast. But the recovery process from the boot disk would be impossible for a technical newbie. I bought the full version, even getting the CD hoping recovery would be easier with it. It now sits idly in my drawer. Comparing Drivesnapshot with Image for Windows, IFW is the hands down winner, because of the difference in the recovery process.

Pete" }-
Exact same experience here Pete. Image For Windows is FAR superior, and it doesn't get any easier.