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

Discussion in 'Dell' started by RnR, Sep 17, 2007.

  1. RnR

    RnR Guest

    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, Sep 17, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. RnR

    Nemesis Guest

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

    Nemesis, Sep 17, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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.


    Hank Arnold
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Server - Directory Services
    Hank Arnold (MVP), Sep 17, 2007
  4. RnR

    RnR Guest

    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.
    RnR, Sep 17, 2007
  5. RnR

    RnR Guest

    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.
    RnR, Sep 17, 2007
  6. RnR

    Tony Harding Guest

    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 Harding, Sep 17, 2007
  7. RnR

    Tony Harding Guest

    Being biased doesn't mean you're not also right about the NG, you know. ;)
    Tony Harding, Sep 17, 2007
  8. RnR

    Brian K Guest

    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.
    Brian K, Sep 17, 2007
  9. RnR

    Nemesis Guest

    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.

    Nemesis, Sep 18, 2007
  10. RnR

    Nemesis Guest

    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.

    Nemesis, Sep 18, 2007
  11. RnR

    Brian K Guest

    I gather it's real. Hasn't happened to me either but some experienced TI
    users test restore every image as they don't trust the Verify function. I
    don't want to do that. Here's a quote from the TI forum.

    "Even if you verified and it passed that is still no guarantee that the
    restore will be good, as other users have found out too late. The only way
    to be sure a backup image is good is to restore it to a spare drive."

    Brian K, Sep 18, 2007
  12. It works fine with Vista Home Premium


    Hank Arnold
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Server - Directory Services
    Hank Arnold (MVP), Sep 18, 2007
  13. RnR

    RnR Guest

    This unfortunately seems to be good advice based on my past
    experience. Over the years I've had a few backups and images fail
    and never figured out why but the disappointment was a killer. It's
    not the time you want to find this out :( .
    RnR, Sep 18, 2007
  14. RnR

    RnR Guest

    Hank, sorry but not sure which you were referring to. Did you mean
    Acronis works with Vista or Norton?
    RnR, Sep 18, 2007
  15. RnR

    Nemesis Guest

    That appears to be one instance only, and from a guy who sounds pretty

    Nemesis, Sep 18, 2007
  16. RnR

    Journey Guest

    I haven't read the other threads yet, but I think the main thing I can
    add is:

    - Acronis True Image 10 has been working for me on Vista.

    - Norton has been releasing sub-par anti-virus software (bogs a
    system down) so that has tainted my image of anything they make.

    I do recommend taking a backup and doing a reinstall right away. Move
    your data someplace safe manually. If you're going to rely on a
    program to provide backup / restore, it's important that you know that
    it works.

    (i.e. do your own disaster recovery test)
    Journey, Sep 18, 2007
  17. RnR

    Brian K Guest

    The view has several supporters. Not a lot of people do this in view of the
    time involved.

    Below is a recent thread on corrupted images. Like you, I haven't had a
    problem but the TI forum indicates that many people do have restore problems
    and it's impossible to know in advance which computers will have the

    Brian K, Sep 18, 2007
  18. RnR

    Brian K Guest

    Brian K, Sep 18, 2007
  19. RnR

    RnR Guest

    Appreciate the info. You think I can talk them down on
    the price <grin>.

    Thanks Brian... that's good info.
    RnR, Sep 19, 2007
  20. If I had to choose between Ghost and True Image, I'd choose Ghost
    just because Ghost can make a clone of a bootable partition from
    among other partitions on a hard drive and put it on another hard
    drive that already has partitions on it. According to the User's Guide
    for True Image, that utility will only make a clone of the entire hard
    drive and put it on another hare drive as the entire contents of that
    hard drive, scaling up the size of the partitions if it needs to. That's
    sufficient if all one needs to do is upgrade to a larger hard drive,
    but if that is all that is needed, free utilities downloadable from drive
    manufacturers' sites are available to do it. I archive multiple clones,
    each a snapshot of the entire partition, and I store them on another
    hard drive, any of the clones being bootable in an emergency. To
    make those clones, I use Casper, although Ghost would be a more
    expensive alternative.

    If one's goal is to make an "image" file of a partition, to be stored
    on CD or DVD or an external USB drive, and which will need to
    be "restored" to a hard drive before it could be used (or booted if
    it contains an OS), or if one wanted to schedule automatic incremental
    backups of selected files, I've heard good things about True Image.

    Timothy Daniels, Sep 19, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.