Ghost VS. True Image

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by llbarnes, Aug 19, 2006.

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

    llbarnes Registered Member

    Aug 19, 2006
    I never write comments when I have a good experience but had to in this case with Acronis True Image for Windows Servers...:D

    I would like to give Acronis True Image for Windows Servers my own personal thumbs UP. Like many of you, I have been using Ghost for years. It's never ever let me down and has served my every need... Until now... Trying to upgrade to a larger drive on my Windows 2000 Server (with terminal services) and first tried Ghost. Not only did it have a complete problem with "unnamed MFT table entries" the entire process from a 70GB hard drive to a 300 GB hard drive took almost 5 hours. When it was done, the drive thought it was the D: drive so when W2K server booted up, it freaked when I tried logging in and just kept returning me to Ctrl Alt Del. Many hours later, and non stop issues, I found a blurb about Acronis True Image for Windows Servers. My God, it took about 45 minutes if even that and when I rebooted to the new drive, everything was there, properly partitioned out and was able to log in.

    Ghost certainly has it's place in drive cloneing, but when it comes to Servers, i'll be using True Image from now on... If you are having problems with GHOST, don't waste your time trying to figure it out. Symantec has killed Ghost like they have done with all their other products...

    True Image is AWESOME. :thumb:
  2. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Jun 16, 2005
    Hello llbarnes,

    Thank you for choosing Acronis True Image for Windows Servers. :)

    An ex-Terabyte-user.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.