Hi guys,

I have been using the Ghost program that came with Systemworks 2003
but periodically have problems with updates. I DON'T want to update
Ghost as it worked fine straight out of the box. HOWEVER, when I
connect to the Symantec site for updates to my Norton Internet
Security package, I seem to get Ghost updates as well and this screws
Ghost up. I then have to re-install the whole of Systemworks (since
Ghost is all bundled up with it) in order to get back to a fully
working copy of Ghost - which of course only works for as long as I
don't update Norton Internet Security! I've had enough of this
nonsense and need to make some serious changes. So what's currently
the best back-up option for me? I use just two Dell laptops both
running win2k. and the data on each HD is relatively small (only about
10Gb used on each computer.
Thanks, all.
Paul.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Paul Burridge" <paul@burridge8333.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1174901956.134218.28980@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi guys,
>
> I have been using the Ghost program that came with Systemworks 2003
> but periodically have problems with updates. I DON'T want to update
> Ghost as it worked fine straight out of the box. HOWEVER, when I
> connect to the Symantec site for updates to my Norton Internet
> Security package, I seem to get Ghost updates as well and this screws
> Ghost up. I then have to re-install the whole of Systemworks (since
> Ghost is all bundled up with it) in order to get back to a fully
> working copy of Ghost - which of course only works for as long as I
> don't update Norton Internet Security! I've had enough of this
> nonsense and need to make some serious changes. So what's currently
> the best back-up option for me? I use just two Dell laptops both
> running win2k. and the data on each HD is relatively small (only about
> 10Gb used on each computer.
> Thanks, all.
> Paul.
>
Acronis True Image is well recommended.
I use it and like it ( I do however only use TI 8).
http://www.acronis.com/homecomputin...ucts/trueimage/

bw..

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:31:13 GMT, "meerkat" <xxxx@xxxx.com> wrote:

>
>"Paul Burridge" <paul@burridge8333.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1174901956.134218.28980@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... 
>Acronis True Image is well recommended.
>I use it and like it ( I do however only use TI 8).
>http://www.acronis.com/homecomputin...ucts/trueimage/
>
>bw..
>
I started using TI 6. Now use TI 9. I image my 16 GB C drive in 9
minutes using the default settings.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Shel schrieb:
> I image my 16 GB C drive in 9
> minutes using the default settings.

How is it possible? You mean a difference-image?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:39:08 +0200, Christian Buhtz <yspam@gmx.net>
wrote:

>Shel schrieb: 
>
>How is it possible? You mean a difference-image?

No. It is a total image of the C drive. I have been doing it weekly
for the last two or more years. I have occasionally recovered files
from an image. The NTFS partition size is 83 GB, but only 16 GB are in
use.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Shel schrieb:
> No. It is a total image of the C drive. I have been doing it weekly
> for the last two or more years. I have occasionally recovered files
> from an image. The NTFS partition size is 83 GB, but only 16 GB are in
> use.

How is it possible to read 16GB in 9minutes?
I know my own hardware is quite old but such values are utopic for
actual hardware, too.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 06:38:34 +0200, Christian Buhtz <yspam@gmx.net>
wrote:

>Shel schrieb: 
>
>How is it possible to read 16GB in 9minutes?
>I know my own hardware is quite old but such values are utopic for
>actual hardware, too.

3 GHz CPU, 7200 rpm internal and external drives, USB2.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Mar 27, 5:23 pm, Shel <s...@XXXieee.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 06:38:34 +0200, Christian Buhtz <y...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>
> 3 GHz CPU, 7200 rpm internal and external drives, USB2.


True Image does a little more of a plain sector-by-sector backup,
because it manage filesystem details (in this case NTFS details). So,
if you're imaging a system NTFS drive, e.g. pagefile.sys, which can be
several gigs, is skipped, and the 'real' backupped data size is much
lower than 18 GB.

Hope this helps

Gianluca

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]