TrueImage vs. Norton Ghost v9.0

Discussion in 'Acronis True Image Product Line' started by DrZeto, Feb 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DrZeto

    DrZeto Registered Member

    Feb 2, 2005
    ok, first I used Norton Ghost 2004 to make ghost images of my drive (worked fine). But Norton tends to take up to much computer resources. Then I upgraded to Norton Ghost v9.0 (to see if it was better). I discovered that v9.0 didn't jump out to DOS like v2004 did when creating a ghost image. So right there I became very doubtful that v9.0 could even make a proper ghost image of OS, registry and installed apps since many system files are write protected while still in windows, or am I wrong? So anyway I tried and evidently the operation failed, some file couldn't get written on the DVD (probably due to the above).

    Now, since Norton Ghost v9.0 obviously is crap! I was wondering if Acronis TrueImage is better? Can it make a ghost image of the drive, including OS, registry, installed apps and all files on the drive, and burn it directly on a DVD?

    What I want to do is be able to take my burned ghost image DVDs and install everything on an empty drive on another computer, so I get a fully working cloned enviroment in 1 install, provided that the hardware is the same ofcourse. Will TrueImage do this?
  2. Acronis Support

    Acronis Support Acronis Support Staff

    Apr 28, 2004
    Hello DrZeto,

    Thank you for your interest in Acronis True Image (

    The images created by Acronis True Image are not Ghost-compatible. You may create the image of your partitions or the whole disks and then restore them only with Acronis True Image (either installed under your operational system or with Acronis Bootable CD).

    Acronis exclusive image creation technology alows you to create images of working computers without any problems. All the information stored in the registry, all the system files (even hidden and read-only) are included in the image. After you restore this image to another computer you will obtain the exact clone of the first machine.

    If you have further questions concerning Acronis True Image please feel free to ask them either on this forum or via e-mail

    Thank you.
    Ilya Toytman
  3. mdburkey

    mdburkey Registered Member

    Nov 11, 2004
    I think Acronis support missed the general thought behind your question.

    Which was "Does Acronis TI8 work better than Ghost 9.0"...

    The answer is a big DEFINITELY.

    So far, I have been using Acronis since version 6.0 and it has been able to do a live image of my hard drive from within Windows without shutting down and then be able to restore that image to another machine without problems. I just did it yesterday in fact -- I imaged my old machine (2 x 250Gb PATA Raid on Silicon Image controller) to a spare hard drive (400Gb) then stuck that drive into my new machine and restored the image onto my new system using the boot CD (2 x 250Gb SATA RAID on Intel ICH6R). It worked perfectly and I am using the system right now. (I did make it a point to install all the drivers for the new systems controllers FIRST and also de-installed all the drivers for the old system before I did this).

    I still feel the *old* 2003 version of Ghost had a few features that TrueImage is lacking (like direct burning to DVD!) and the ability to easily make a true "restore CD" with everything on it that auto-reloads, but other than that, TrueImage has been the one of the best products I've ever dealt with. Is it perfect? No. But, so far, nothing else I've seen even comes close.

    I did have one problem one time with the V7 Acronis Boot CD not working properly with my Dell system (ACPI issue), but Acronis tech support was good enough to send me a custom build of the Boot CD with ACPI disabled that worked fine!

    Now, Norton Ghost 9, don't even get me started. It has got to be the biggest hunk of crap that I think I have ever used. I took it back to OfficeMax and demanded a refund. It wouldn't even RUN on my primary system and when I did get it to work on my secondary unit, it was missing a lot of the useful features the older versions had (basically, unless you are running on XP only and don't have any other OS's, its totally useless). NG9 is based on the technology Symantec got when they acquired PowerQuest DriveImage rather than their own original Ghost technology. They should have stuck with their own team.
  4. Steve1947

    Steve1947 Registered Member

    Sep 15, 2004
    Tabernacle, NJ
    I wonder if the Norton 9.0 has a corrupted image problem? I must admit that Acronis has a superior design but this is benefit is lost if your backup data is corrrupted.
  5. howie123

    howie123 Registered Member

    Dec 1, 2004
    Both TrueImage and Ghost 9.0 will successfully image your system drive while in the OS. True Image has several advantages over Ghost 9, though, and some of these are:

    1. True Image does not require you have .NET Framework installed.
    2. Ghost requires you boot with the program CD to do full system restores while True Image restores can be initiated from Windows or by using your boot CD.
    3. Ghost uses a customized version of Windows PE on it's "Recovery Environment" CD which seems to take forever to load. TI's Linux-based boot CD is much faster.
    4. Ghost requires you press F6 to load drivers from a floppy if you have certain SCSI, RAID, SATA or UltraATA drive controllers.

    I have used both and True Image is far superior in terms of ease of use and speed. There's just no comparison!
    As a side note, after literally hundreds of full system images and increments, I've yet to have a corrupt image with TI when backing up to an additional internal HDD.
  6. bulldog356

    bulldog356 Registered Member

    Feb 8, 2005
    <lol> I'm always amused by people who write that software "obviously is crap." Usually it's the person complaining who is full of it, and this is obviously the case with Dr. Zeto.

    Dr. Z could have easily "discovered that [Ghost] v9.0 didn't jump out to DOS" by reading any of the reviews in the major e-zines before buying Ghost. And, Dr. Z, Ghost is extremely capable of imaging your entire system partition while you are still in Windows. I've done it on many occasions.

    Moreover, "Dr." Z wants to clone one computer and install the image to another computer. That will only work if the two computers have identical hardware in every way, whether with Ghost or with TI. It's explained in some detail in Symantec's knowledge base - but we've already established that the OP doesn't read before trying things.

    I don't find that Ghost slows my system, or at least, not to any greater degree than True Image. As for .Net: Other software I use requires it anyway.

    I'm switching from Ghost to TI because, for me, an image of my system partition is my lifeline, and I find restores more convenient with TI. For one thing, incremental backups are identified by date, so you can easily go back to the date you need.

    At first I thought I would miss TI's apparent inability to image directly to optical media. Truth is, though, it takes less time to image to disk and then burn a DVD. And as long as you have two optical drives, as I do, a bootable DVD is unnecessary.
  7. silly

    silly Guest

    Well, there is one thing I want to know: Does TI8 clone a hard disk bit by bit like PowerQuest Disk Image? Ghost doesn't, it recognizes the bytes, so it actually ignore the white spaces. and filesystem matters.
  8. NineToTheSky

    NineToTheSky Registered Member

    Jan 19, 2005
    I have both TI 8 and Ghost 9 on my system (P4 3.06, 1gb RAM). I'm not a techie, so I can only say what I see, and that is: they both create successful images, but Ghost is a real resource hog - my system really crawls when it's running, and its backups take about twice as long as TI. I don't find Ghost very user friendly either. As regular users of this forum will testify, TI's technical support is superb. TI is a clear winner.
  9. sandokan

    sandokan Registered Member

    May 14, 2004
    What team? Symantec\Norton never developed any imaging application, they just bought the original Ghost from another company, much like they acquired Powerquest now. Everything Symantec touches turns to garbage, so I'm not surprised that NG9 is pure crap.

    As a side note, what is it with these people that see installing the NET Framework as a disadvantage? Are they living in the DOS era? Are they using 5MB HDDs? The NET Framework is used by so many apps that it is really idiotic not to install it, as it causes no conflicts whatsoever, and its size is small considering the amount of libraries it provides.
  10. gordog

    gordog Registered Member

    Mar 23, 2005
    Good Afternoon. I have used Symantec Ghost at my work place for about 7 years now. I remember using Ghost 6.0 when it first came out. We have run into some problems with ghost 7.5 and the support from Symantec is not very helpful when you start talking about Raid controllers. 8.0 didn't fix our problems it just has a link for your error message that your image is corrupt. I have only tested the TrueImage software for a few hours and already I can see a big difference between the two. :rolleyes:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.