Imaging...

Discussion in 'polls' started by crockett, Jan 4, 2005.

?

Which is best abd why...

  1. Drive Image 2002 because...

    1 vote(s)
    12.5%
  2. Drive Image 7, but it must be version number...

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Ghost has always done the trick, I love iot because...

    1 vote(s)
    12.5%
  4. Disk Expert or True Image is best; here's why...

    3 vote(s)
    37.5%
  5. I use other software Crockett does not know of, which is...

    3 vote(s)
    37.5%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. crockett

    crockett Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Posts:
    333
    Hi everybody ;)

    I'd like to ask users which Imaging software they use, and why...

    I tested Acronis True Image and liked it, especially because of the possibility to create a boot-cd. I liked the speed at which TI created images, complete or incremental, but I have to say that it is very slow when restoring - probably three to four times slower than, say, Drive Image.

    Drive Image 2002 was my favorite, but wouldn't allow one to create boot-cd, only floppies. I turned to DI 7.0.2.03.402, which is bootable, but I found that it takes about five minutes to boot before one gets to the Restore options. Furthermore, running it from WXP, you have to boot from cd to restore an image on the drive you're currently using, while DI 2002 allowed one to instruct the program to do so before it would take over and restart and do a perfect clean job.

    What about the older Drive Image 7.0.2.0.0.325 ? Did anyone try it ? Is it as long to boot from cd? What are the differences between these two DI7 versions ?

    Norton Ghost has many merits too, which I tested back in 2002. The current version has incorporated Powerquest technology, and the bootable cd is as slow as in 7.0.2.03.402, but restoring is... slightly faster (!) than with 7.0.2.03.402 (which may seem surprising).... So in a sense it should appear as the best option for my needs so far.

    Thanks for advices and comments, especially on the DI 7 versions comparisons... Important to me before I try to get my hands on DI 7.0.2.0.0.325 (if I can).

    Regards, Crockett :cool:
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2005
  2. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    I've tried out Image for DOS (TerabyteUnlimited) and Ghost 2003 which runs under DOS using a USB 2.0 Maxtor External Drive. Both run well, but could be very slow. I wouldn't recommend it for more than 30GB of data. I prefer DOS backups in order to ensure a high degree of logical and physical consistency of data. That is, nothing is being changed as the backup is being started. Also, I love simplicity.

    Rich
     
  3. crockett

    crockett Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Posts:
    333
    Hi... Would love to be able to backup from dos, just for the fun of it... I have no clue how to do it, though. I don't have any bootable floppy drive....

    No marked difference after all between the two Drive Image 7 versions mentioned above. Both can work on LAN if necessary, and both can create a back up image without leaving Windows, and the bootable cd is the original program cd. Takes a few minutes to get initiated when cd-booting (slower than floppy-booting from DI2002).

    Ghost 9 boot cd does exactly the same things since it incorporated the DI technology. Norton much more expensive, though, so if you can get your hands on Drive Image 7, go for it, especially if sold with accompanying Drive Image 2002.

    To me the ideal set up is this: Drive Image 2002 installed on system, to create and restore backup Images (VERY fast). Bootable-cd Drive Image 7 (or Ghost 9) as a security net in case of system complete failure or Hard Drive physical breakdown.

    Still can't understand why Acronis is so slow when restoring.... (MUCH slower than Drive Image). Shame, 'cause I love Acronis Partition Expert.

    Rgds, Crockett :cool:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.