|
Home > Archive > Backup Software > December 2006 > Difference between Norton Ghost 10 and Norton Save and Restore?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Difference between Norton Ghost 10 and Norton Save and Restore?
|
|
| Christian Blackburn 2006-09-26, 7:15 pm |
| Hi Gang,
I'm trying to figure out what the difference is between Norton Ghost
and Norton Save and Restore. Common sense would indicate that it's a
newer and more consumer friendly name for that product offering.
However, if you go to symantec's website they still have Ghost it just
seems to be a corporate offering. Is the last version of Norton Ghost
10.0 and the continuation of that title Norton Save and Restore (11.0)?
Or is Save and Restore an SE (watered down) version of Ghost?
Thanks,
Christian Blackburn
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-09-29, 7:29 pm |
| From what I have read, Save and Restore is largely Ghost 10 plus the
capability (not really needed) to backup files and directories instead of a
full image.
I use both Ghost 10 and True Image 9, but see
http://forums.hardwareguys.com/ikon...ST;f=13;t=4573.
| |
|
| Howard Kaikow wrote:
> From what I have read, Save and Restore is largely Ghost 10 plus the
> capability (not really needed) to backup files and directories instead of a
> full image.
I think it is a good idea that Symantec included some kind of File and
Folder backup utility
with Norton Save And Restore v11, because sometimes users just want to
back up certain files/folders only. And I think they intended it to be
used in conjunction with the image backups, not as a replacement.
However, a poster here appears to have encountered a problem restoring
saved files with it.
I've not tried a restore yet, so I don't know too much about it.
I use Microsoft SyncToy (free) -
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/...to/synctoy.mspx
for most of my file and folder archival needs (besides the regular
full-image backups with v11).
Or the plain old ntbackup.exe (originally from Veritas?) that comes
with Windows XP Pro should do full/incremental file & folder backups.
(I hear the executable works fine under Windows XP Home too)
| |
| Christian Blackburn 2006-10-04, 7:15 am |
| Hi Howard,
Thanks for your reply. I'm glad to hear Norton has decided to match
TrueImage on an important feature. Personally, I don't like the way
TrueImage has that implemented. Rather than implicit inclusion I'd
prefer to just select a whole partition and then specify which folders
should be ignored. You can achieve that result, but it's not quite
that simple.
Cheers,
Christian Blackburn
| |
| Christian Blackburn 2006-10-04, 7:15 am |
| Hi NGT,
Thanks for the tips. I've heard of SyncToy, but haven't used it as of
yet.
I also appreciate the note that you can use NTBackup.exe on XP Home,
Microsoft won't like that, but I do  .
Cheers,
Christian
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-10-04, 1:13 pm |
| There are at least three problems with allowing a separate backup of files:
1. Users get into the very bad habit of saving only selected files and not
doing image backups, or not doing image backups often enough.
2. Restoring files, be it from an image backup or a file based backup will
fail for some files in some products. See
http://www.standards.com/index.html?CreateFileFailure. But with an image
based backup, there are more ways to recover such files.
3. File backups are way too slow. If one needs to quickly save a copy of
particular files between image backups, just copy the files to ZIP or
optical media, or to a separate directory on an external drive.
| |
|
| Christian Blackburn wrote:
> Microsoft won't like that, but I do .
I hear that NTBackup (aka Microsoft Backup?) creates archives under
Windows 98, 2000 and XP that are not necessarily compatible, even with
compression turned off.
So if anyone tries to back up files using this utility in one version
of the OS and restore it to another version of the OS, you may not be
able to.
And it looks like Symantec acquired Veritas in July 2005.
| |
|
| Howard Kaikow wrote:
> There are at least three problems with allowing a separate backup of files:
>
> 1. Users get into the very bad habit of saving only selected files and not
> doing image backups, or not doing image backups often enough.
I don't think anyone here will disagree with you that a full-image
backup is probably the best backup.
But it is often the most time and resource consuming backup.
Having Symantec omit a File and Folder backup solution simply because
we think it may get users into a bad habit of not doing "proper"
backups would be analogous to [insert name of your favorite automobile
manufacturer] designing cars that won't start if you don't put on your
seat belt (because it is not the "proper" way to drive).
> 3. File backups are way too slow. If one needs to quickly save a copy of
> particular files between image backups, just copy the files to ZIP or
> optical media, or to a separate directory on an external drive.
Unless there many files in many (sub)directories.
copy/xcopy can be real fun to use then
You trust ZIP media? (maybe you were refreeing to .zip files)
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-10-09, 7:14 am |
| "NGT" <ngtestr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160235429.947927.125080@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> I don't think anyone here will disagree with you that a full-image
> backup is probably the best backup.
> But it is often the most time and resource consuming backup.
Image backups are always MUCH faster thaan a files based bacup.
Certain image based backups do incremental and differential backups, always
a better choice thgan a file based backup.
At this time, True Image is the only program of which I an aware that does
image based incremental and differential backups the proper way. See
http://forums.hardwareguys.com/ikon...ST;f=13;t=4573.
>
> Unless there many files in many (sub)directories.
> copy/xcopy can be real fun to use then
The proper way is to copy the files as you use them, e.g., copying a Word
template or a directory im which particular work is being done.
> You trust ZIP media? (maybe you were refreeing to .zip files)
I've had no problems with ZIP media. In any case, the copy is only a
temporary solution.
Except in rather unusual cirumstances, I do at least one backup each day
using Ghost 10 or True Image 9, sometimes both.
| |
| Christian Blackburn 2006-11-06, 1:12 pm |
| Hi Guys,
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I've had no problems with ZIP media.
Before you make a response like that I suggest you do a search for the
click of death. I know my father and I lost about 13 zip disks between
the two of us. Not only that but every drive you put a thereafter bad
disk in will also suffer the click of death. The only thing that was
ever good about zip drives was people beginning to adopt larger media
sizes. The only reason Zip drive were so popular is that they stole
their name from PKWare's compression format. Many people just knew Zip
files were good/cool so they bought the drive not evening knowing the
difference. A CD-RW is also re-writeable using the right software, but
isn't as magnetically nor pressure sensitive.
Cheers,
Christian
| |
|
| On 6 Nov 2006 10:03:35 -0800, "Christian Blackburn"
<christian.Blackburn@Yahoo.com> wrote:
-
-Before you make a response like that I suggest you do a search for the
-click of death. I know my father and I lost about 13 zip disks between
-the two of us. Not only that but every drive you put a thereafter bad
-disk in will also suffer the click of death. The only thing that was
-ever good about zip drives was people beginning to adopt larger media
-sizes. The only reason Zip drive were so popular is that they stole
-their name from PKWare's compression format. Many people just knew Zip
-files were good/cool so they bought the drive not evening knowing the
-difference. A CD-RW is also re-writeable using the right software, but
-isn't as magnetically nor pressure sensitive.
You write from your bad experience of Zip disks.
A CD-RW is, I would suggest, hugely more liable to be rendered defective than a
Zip disk. A tiny scratch on a CD renders it useless, and a CD is a lot more
likely to get a scratch than a Zip disk is to get click of death.
I have hundreds of customers using Zip disks daily, and a couple of them have
had the click of death. I agree that Iomega's head-in-sand approach to
responding to this issue was atrocious. However why don't big companies use CDs
or DVDs rather than tape for backup?
CD-RW packet writing software is also notoriously hit or miss. Zips were/are
properly writeable, and removeable. Plus you can simply copy A to B without
using extra software. I have CDs here that will read in one pc but not in
another. This doesn't happen with Zip disks.
Historically, the reason Zips got popular was due to their uptake by Mac users.
Anyhow that's my 2p worth - I didn't see the start of this, but have added the
zip drive group to the thread.
-Rob
robatwork at mail dot com
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-12-01, 7:15 pm |
| "Christian Blackburn" <christian.Blackburn@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162836215.309957.9780@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Before you make a response like that I suggest you do a search for the
> click of death. I know my father and I lost about 13 zip disks between
> the two of us. Not only that but every drive you put a thereafter bad
> disk in will also suffer the click of death. The only thing that was
> ever good about zip drives was people beginning to adopt larger media
> sizes. The only reason Zip drive were so popular is that they stole
> their name from PKWare's compression format. Many people just knew Zip
> files were good/cool so they bought the drive not evening knowing the
> difference. A CD-RW is also re-writeable using the right software, but
> isn't as magnetically nor pressure sensitive.
I've not hadany problems with a ZIP drive and I backup often, usually at
least once perday.
As I feel necessary, I'll also make copies to CD-RW.
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-12-01, 7:15 pm |
| "Rob S" <robatworkDeleteTheseFourWords@mail.com> wrote in message
news:455079c3.12267968@giganews.nildram.co.uk...
> On 6 Nov 2006 10:03:35 -0800, "Christian Blackburn"
> CD-RW packet writing software is also notoriously hit or miss. Zips
were/are
> properly writeable, and removeable. Plus you can simply copy A to B
without
> using extra software. I have CDs here that will read in one pc but not in
> another. This doesn't happen with Zip disks.
Packet writing is not the problem.
It's the incompetent implementations of UDF that cause the problems.
P.S. I use a ZIP drive only because I got lucky(?) and ordered my PC
during, as I recall, a three-day window during whicha free ZIP drive was
included.
|
|
|
|
|