Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by cheater87, Jul 12, 2008.
I heard this was great. Its like Norton Ghost.
Not till now. The project's homepage Cheater - http://freeghost.no-ip.org/
I'm not sure what you mean by this?
He, um, means he hasn't heard of it until now
Oh oops. I get it now.
FOG is in very-early-beta stage. Imaging programs can really screw things up - kill partitions etc -- if they are buggy. I sometimes try betas -- but an imaging beta? I wouldn't get within light-years of touching one.
I think as a general rule that is good but there are exceptions. Like Google labels everything as beta for years. And I've regularly tried Piriform beta's with no ill effects. So it depends on the company and how they label it.
its like once for some reason my older machine xp had a beta driver for my silicon image sata raid controller. found out by using autoruns. updated it as soon as i could. dont think you can get much worse than a beta driver controlling your hard drive.
i wouldnt test beta imaging software eiether.
I tend to agree. At this stage I'd prefer Clonezilla which is a mature product.
Linden Labs has been labeling software as "Release Candidate" but it is DEFINATELY beta quality, if not alpha quality.. They just call it RC because it is running on the main grid as opposed to the beta grid.
If you want other proof, they are on RC14. RC1-10 or so were based on an entirely different code version even. What should have been v1.20.0 was RC-1-10 (or so), what would have become v1.21.0 has been RC11-14 (and adopted the version number v1.20.0). It was not made public knowledge really of this code shift but that just goes to show you that labeling makes a huge difference, not just being called beta makes it bad.
Separate names with a comma.