OT: Any thoughts on Norton 12 vs. Acronis True Image

I just noticed Norton 12 being sold and wondered if anyone here tried
it and could compare to Acronis True Image? What did you think of
Norton 12 and is it compatible as they say to Vista (if you tried it)?

RnR wrote:
> I just noticed Norton 12 being sold and wondered if anyone here tried
> it and could compare to Acronis True Image? What did you think of
> Norton 12 and is it compatible as they say to Vista (if you tried it)?

I can only tell you that the old Ghost version was an abomination.
Acronis (I use TI Home 10) is pretty reliable.

Nem

RnR wrote:
> I just noticed Norton 12 being sold and wondered if anyone here tried
> it and could compare to Acronis True Image? What did you think of
> Norton 12 and is it compatible as they say to Vista (if you tried it)?

I had to dump an older version of Ghost when I went with Vista. I was
not happy about there being no upgrade. I would have had to by the full
version. I got Acronis at a cheaper price. Frankly, I preferred Ghost. I
found the interface and scheduling full/incremental backups much easier.
However, you won't be making a mistake getting Acronis.

Best bet is to download Acronis and try it out. I don't know if Symantec
has a trial version of Ghost.

--

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:40:26 -0400, "Hank Arnold (MVP)"
<> wrote:

>RnR wrote:
>> I just noticed Norton 12 being sold and wondered if anyone here tried
>> it and could compare to Acronis True Image? What did you think of
>> Norton 12 and is it compatible as they say to Vista (if you tried it)?
>
>I had to dump an older version of Ghost when I went with Vista. I was
>not happy about there being no upgrade. I would have had to by the full
>version. I got Acronis at a cheaper price. Frankly, I preferred Ghost. I
>found the interface and scheduling full/incremental backups much easier.
>However, you won't be making a mistake getting Acronis.
>
>Best bet is to download Acronis and try it out. I don't know if Symantec
>has a trial version of Ghost.


I currently use Acronis (vers. 10) and except for one instance (not
sure tho it was Acronis's fault), never had a problem with it. I too
find it sometimes cumbersome to use (a lot of screens to go thru) but
it works (I don't know if it works tho on Vista, I use XP right now,
but it is suppose to).

The initial few reviews from other users elsewhere was 4/5 stars but
it was only about 5 users. I prefer to hear from this newsgroup as
many here are probably more knowledgeable (ok, I'm biased) and I feel
like many are my friends.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:03:09 +0100, Nemesis <> wrote:

>RnR wrote:
>> I just noticed Norton 12 being sold and wondered if anyone here tried
>> it and could compare to Acronis True Image? What did you think of
>> Norton 12 and is it compatible as they say to Vista (if you tried it)?
>
>I can only tell you that the old Ghost version was an abomination.
>Acronis (I use TI Home 10) is pretty reliable.
>
>Nem


I use the same but sometimes its a bit cumbersome with all the
screens. Initial reviews on Ghost 12 elsewhere were good but prefer
to hear it here. I agree some versions of ghost were bad. If I
recall many still prefer version 9 but one review said it is limited
when using it with Vista. I'm not ready to abandon Acronis unless
Ghost is a lot easier/better and the price is right.

Nemesis wrote:
> RnR wrote:
>> I just noticed Norton 12 being sold and wondered if anyone here tried
>> it and could compare to Acronis True Image? What did you think of
>> Norton 12 and is it compatible as they say to Vista (if you tried it)?
>
> I can only tell you that the old Ghost version was an abomination.
> Acronis (I use TI Home 10) is pretty reliable.

I loved Ghost 2003 - it created a bootable copy of your HDD. Didn't like
Ghost 9 & 10 at all, so I turned to Acronis 10 about a year ago. Very
happy with it.

With Acronis, I can reliably restore a disk/partition/files from a
backup, something I could *not* with Ghost, even when I followed their
inconvenient instructions regarding USB drives to the letter. That was
the deal breaker for me - if I couldn't restore when I needed, taking
backups with Ghost was a waste of time & I was running like a rookie,
i.e., no backups & hope for the best.

At the same time I also chucked NAV and switched to a paid version of
AVG (AVG with firewall), which also let me dump ZoneAlarm after several
years. It had become yet another PITA, like NAV.

RnR wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:40:26 -0400, "Hank Arnold (MVP)"
> <> wrote:
>
>> RnR wrote:
>>> I just noticed Norton 12 being sold and wondered if anyone here tried
>>> it and could compare to Acronis True Image? What did you think of
>>> Norton 12 and is it compatible as they say to Vista (if you tried it)?
>> I had to dump an older version of Ghost when I went with Vista. I was
>> not happy about there being no upgrade. I would have had to by the full
>> version. I got Acronis at a cheaper price. Frankly, I preferred Ghost. I
>> found the interface and scheduling full/incremental backups much easier.
>> However, you won't be making a mistake getting Acronis.
>>
>> Best bet is to download Acronis and try it out. I don't know if Symantec
>> has a trial version of Ghost.
>
>
> I currently use Acronis (vers. 10) and except for one instance (not
> sure tho it was Acronis's fault), never had a problem with it. I too
> find it sometimes cumbersome to use (a lot of screens to go thru) but
> it works (I don't know if it works tho on Vista, I use XP right now,
> but it is suppose to).
>
> The initial few reviews from other users elsewhere was 4/5 stars but
> it was only about 5 users. I prefer to hear from this newsgroup as
> many here are probably more knowledgeable (ok, I'm biased) and I feel
> like many are my friends.

Being biased doesn't mean you're not also right about the NG, you know.

I've used the various Ghosts and TIs over the years. Never had a problem
with any but I currently use Ghost 12. It's easy to use and it has a lot of
nice features which entertain me but most people will never use. Best of
all, it's reliable. You can be certain that a verified image will restore.


TI worries me in that certain hardware configurations work poorly with TI
and although you can create an image, it may not restore. The image passes
validation but does not restore. A real concern if you are the unlucky one
and it's your computer. You think you have backup, but you really don't.

Tony Harding wrote:
> Nemesis wrote:
>> RnR wrote:
>>> I just noticed Norton 12 being sold and wondered if anyone here tried
>>> it and could compare to Acronis True Image? What did you think of
>>> Norton 12 and is it compatible as they say to Vista (if you tried it)?
>>
>> I can only tell you that the old Ghost version was an abomination.
>> Acronis (I use TI Home 10) is pretty reliable.
>
> I loved Ghost 2003 - it created a bootable copy of your HDD. Didn't like
> Ghost 9 & 10 at all, so I turned to Acronis 10 about a year ago. Very
> happy with it.
>
> With Acronis, I can reliably restore a disk/partition/files from a
> backup, something I could *not* with Ghost, even when I followed their
> inconvenient instructions regarding USB drives to the letter. That was
> the deal breaker for me - if I couldn't restore when I needed, taking
> backups with Ghost was a waste of time & I was running like a rookie,
> i.e., no backups & hope for the best.
>
> At the same time I also chucked NAV and switched to a paid version of
> AVG (AVG with firewall), which also let me dump ZoneAlarm after several
> years. It had become yet another PITA, like NAV.


Tony, you did similar to me. I junked Norton and PC Tools when Peter
Norton sold it which was around the WIn 98 (IIRC). It was a great
company then, but sadly, now it's crap.
I also got rid of the free Zonealarm (was getting more and more resource
hungry) and free AV and "upgraded" to Kaspersky (KIS).

I tried the earlier Ghosts and they were a pain. Acronis is way ahead of
them, even if their are obvious "ease of use" improvements that they
could make.

Nem

Brian K wrote:
> I've used the various Ghosts and TIs over the years. Never had a problem
> with any but I currently use Ghost 12. It's easy to use and it has a lot of
> nice features which entertain me but most people will never use. Best of
> all, it's reliable. You can be certain that a verified image will restore.
>
>
> TI worries me in that certain hardware configurations work poorly with TI
> and although you can create an image, it may not restore. The image passes
> validation but does not restore. A real concern if you are the unlucky one
> and it's your computer. You think you have backup, but you really don't.

I've had the "corrupt image" problem, but I traced this to a dodgy USB -
if even a single bit of data is lost, the image won't restore.

However, I have never heard of (or had) the problem from a verified or
mountable image.


Nem