Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Some real bright fellas I work with have recommended Norton Ghost 9 or 10 for backing up my drives. I ask them what the differences and benefits are compared to just using the backup and restore utilities in XP Pro. They say "I dunno." So, what do you folks say?
Your friend,
Rusty
Norton Ghost can create a image file for partition or disk, but xp cannot.
xp backup utility can backup your system setting timely.
0 
I haven't used very recent versions - I think mine was 2003, but I couldn't find a way to do reliable scheduled backups with Ghost - XP backup could be set up to do backups on alternate days to external drives. Ghost was good for backing up to DVD though, which I couldn't get XP to do directly so it's better for one-off large backups.
"I know that I'm mad, I've always been mad"
0
You might want to take a look at Acronis True Image.
They offer a free trial but I am not sure it is fully functional.
0
Agree, Acronis TrueImage is a real good alternative to Norton Ghost.
If you want 100% backup than image is very good.
The Norton products, in general, are crap.
0
I've used Norton Ghost for years. I am currently using Ghost 2003 as I have had no reason to go with a more recent version.
I tried Acronis True Image a couple of months ago and on the first attempt to restore, it bombed. The C: partition became free space and I had to remove the drive, put it in a USB caddy, and create a new C: partition using WINXP on another computer. I was then able to use Ghost to reimage the partition. This made me hinky about using True Image any more. I've noticed that the friend who suggested I try it hasn't been using it either.
0
Like Badboy, I use Norton Ghost version 2003. The thing about that version, is that it is new enough to handle XP, but you do NOT NEED to activate Ghost 2003. I'm not sure exactly what version, but later on, Norton went the same route as Microshafting--you must activate Ghost.
However, I recommend Ghost highly. On my present setup, using a partition for C: that is about 20gb, with about 9gb presently used, it only takes about 5 min. to build or rebuild a Norton image of the drive.
0
There are reasons to use both.
I like to do backups on a regular basis using NTbackup.
I also like to have known good ghost images.Ghost is good for a complete computer image(copy). It can re-create a software point in a very fast method. It can even copy non-windows information. It can be used to only replace various files with the ghost explorer. It's only drawback is a sort of complex user interface. It is meant for other uses such as production and business.
If you can use ghost then it is a better product. If you can't fully use it then you wasted your money.NTbackup is free. It's real drawback is the way you have to do a full install of the OS then apply the backup. It can not be used for other OS's nor can it be used very well in production or business applications.
Ghost: fast! costs, very flexible, hard to use. (newer ghosts are much more user friendly)
Ntbackup: free, slow, somewhat easy to use.
Most common users would be OK with NTbackup if they have an external storage and a system recovery disk. Many companies use some type of ghost to restore the computer to it's OEM state.
0
Apples and oranges.
Fruit is good.Use Windows' for daily or weekly backups of system and data files.
Use Norton Ghost monthly or quarterly to capture the good working entire partition or drive.
My opinion,
Bryan
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
