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)?

 

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

Nem

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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, 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

 

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

 

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."


http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=178796#4

 

It works fine with Vista Home Premium

--

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services

 

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 .

 

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

 

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

Nem

 

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)

 

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
problem.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=185256

 

If you live in the USA (I don't) you can get Ghost 12 for free. Legally.
Finishes 20 Sept.

http://www.frys.com/product/5276437

 

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

Thanks Brian... that's good info.

 

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.

*TimDaniels*