Ghost or Acronis?

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.

 

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

SystemRescueCd
http://www.sysresccd.org/

 

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

 

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)!

 

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.

 

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

 

Happy New Year

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?
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.

 

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

Yahoo puuuttt thee CDer in that ting over der.

 

Happy New year controler.

Cheers.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

Code:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.