| Chuck U. Farley 2006-09-27, 1:14 pm |
|
> I'm not aware that either title be it Ghost or TrueImage doesn't have a
> test archive feature. That's a non-destructive way to try it.
While I do an integrity check in Ghost with every backup, doing the actual
restore is the best verification process available, and totally
non-destructive.
> Ghost 2003 can't backup while windows is running and doesn't do
> incremental backups. True Image is hideous at DVD backups though, so
I've never understood why backing up from within Windows is such a big deal.
I guess because I come from a command prompt background, it just isn't a big
deal which OS is doing the backup as long as the backup is done correctly,
each and every time. And DOS is quite a bit more stable than _any_ version
of Windows. <vbg>
And you can't get more incremental than every day so even though it takes a
bit longer doing a full image backup, it's time I'm not using the computer
anyway, so how long it takes doesn't really matter.
> TrueImage just has despicable support for burners and yes I'm using the
> latest version build 3677 (I think whatever it was from about 6 months
That's what kept me from using TI 7 and why I still use Ghost 2003 now. The
backup process to DVD is effortless and flawless.
> bootable version that is far more friendly than Ghost. Ghost has a
> bunch of overly technical options for legacy drive support, but it also
> can do network backups, something only the professional version of True
I went through the process of backing up on my home network when I first got
Ghost as a learning experience but never found a practical use for it since
all the computers on my home network have multiple hd's that I image to.
> Image can do. One other considerable advantage to TrueImage (mind you
> I'm not arguing for one over the other) is the ability to save to a
> proprietary partition that most virusses can't touch.
I'm pretty lucky in that respect as my kids now have their own apartments.
<g>
|