05-30-06 12:12 PM
On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:58:14 -0400, "Sam Bench" <roykoch@comcast.net>
wrote:
>I used the trial versions of both Acronis True Image 9.0 and Casper XP. I
>have two identical hard drives on each of my computers and mostly want to
>clone one to the other weekly. Casper XP is ideal for this job. It does a
>faithful, bootable, clone and it does it from within Windows. However,
>Casper XP is a one trick pony. About all it can do is to clone one hard
>drive to another.
Well it does seem to show some MBR details, disk layour & repair
tools.
>On the other hand, True Image 9.0 also makes a faithful, bootable clone but
>it takes you to DOS mode to do it.
AFAIK the bootable media actually runs linux, not dos. Regardeless
you can create OS images while windows is running using Acronis.
>Thus, for what I want to do weekly,
>Casper XP is the way to go.
Both can make a copy of running windows system. Casper primarily
copies the drive or Windows partition to a different disk while
Acronis primarily generates an image type backup file. Either can be
done on a weekly basis. Acronis also has a built-in scheduler so you
can run your weekly incremental or differential backups even if you
forget to start it. Also an Acronis or similar disk image is a little
more useful from a backup protection perspective IMHO.
> However, True Image 9.0 will let me do so much
>more. It will allow me to backup to a bootable DVD or CD if I want to.
>This is probably a good idea every month or so.
There's also a lot more to Acronis product line like the Universal
restore, Snap restore, Files and folders backup with filtering,
Differential backup, & others. If they are both the same price TI is
the better buy IMO.
>I am having trouble making up my mind. Both are the same price on their we
b
>sites. Any advice?? I guess I do have a question. Will I have to buy Tru
e
>Image or Casper XP for each of my computers or will I be able to buy the
>install file and then use the same file on all of my computers?
To my knowledge your objections to Acronis are incorrect & it sounds
like you already have a preference. Acronis can also clone disks a la
Casper if you need that too.
The point of CasperXP is it "makes it a snap to keep a bootable backup
of your Windows XP system." So I believe an argument for Casper would
stem from whether you feel it will be faster to get a Casper-cloned
system online or if it has features that enable you to run multiple
copies of XP side by side (which it almost sounds like it does but I
don't think it actually does without special hardware like mobile
racks) to create a robust multi-failsafe system.
From my look at the trial of Casper it appears that it does not have
the capability to be a very good true bare-metal restore like Acronis
or other disk imagers. Instead to restore the system you either need
to have a functional windows, or you need to remove the faulty system
disk and chage jumpers, drive racks, or BIOS settings to have the
caspered disk take over. This can be great for some, cluncky for
others. for example if you are testing software or are concerned
about catrostrophic single disk failure - and have mobile racks -
Casper looks intersting. But it doesn't look like it's very useful
against malware damage, larger system failure, fire, flood, accidental
deletion, use of common removeable media, etc. unlike other products &
systems.
>
>Thanks.
no prob.
[ Post a follow-up to this message ]
| 
