I need to clone the hard disk containing my XP OS and applications. I know
that there are now several 'cloning' packages available. Can anyone advise
on the pros and cons of each?

Many thanks.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Andrew Chalk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I need to clone the hard disk containing my XP OS and applications. I know
>that there are now several 'cloning' packages available. Can anyone advise
>on the pros and cons of each?
>
>Many thanks.
>
>

I like Acronis Total Image. It's an image backup tool
that also clones disks.



--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

"Andrew Chalk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I need to clone the hard disk containing my XP OS and applications. I know
> that there are now several 'cloning' packages available. Can anyone advise
> on the pros and cons of each?
>
> Many thanks.
>
>

I used to use Norton Ghost - it was quick & easy to use. Then they added
lots of features & it became far too complex for my tastes.

I've used Drive Image for years and liked it's interface but have since
switched to Ghost 2003.

"Andrew Chalk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
I need to clone the hard disk containing my XP OS and applications. I know
that there are now several 'cloning' packages available. Can anyone advise
on the pros and cons of each?

Many thanks.

"Rufio" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsNqTc.41131$Oi.9723@fed1read04...
> > I need to clone the hard disk containing my XP OS and applications. I
know
> > that there are now several 'cloning' packages available. Can anyone
advise
> > on the pros and cons of each?
> >
> > Many thanks.
> >
> >

> "Andrew Chalk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I used to use Norton Ghost - it was quick & easy to use. Then they added
> lots of features & it became far too complex for my tastes.

Rufio:
No doubt you'll receive a variety of responses to your inquiry, each one
touting this or that imaging program. The likelihood is you probably won't
go wrong with any of the more-popular ones. For myself I prefer Symantec's
Norton
Ghost program. I've been using the various versions for nearly four years
now and I find this program simple to use, straightforward in operation, and
most importantly - effective in what does, i.e., cloning one hard disk to
another hard disk.

I'm always puzzled when I come across statements like Rufio's who
denigrate the Ghost program because of its alleged complexity. I frequently
wonder whether we're all using the same program. I have often remarked that
I wish every software program I use was as simple, straightforward, and
effective to use as Symantec's Norton Ghost program.

Let me state at the outset that I use Ghost for one and only one purpose -
to clone the contents of one hard drive to another hard drive. By making a
bit-for-bit copy (not technically precise perhaps, but correct for all
practical purposes) through the cloning process of one's working hard drive,
you have,
what seems to me, the ultimate backup system. I have used various versions
of Ghost over the years, including the present 2003 version. During that
time I estimate I've cloned a multitude of hard drives more than a thousand
times. And done so with nary a hiccup. Ghost's ease of use together with its
reasonable speed make it a joy to use.

After creating the Ghost bootable floppy disk from the Ghost program and
booting up with that disk, the user makes a few simple keyclicks and the
cloning process begins. What could be more simple or more effective?

Art

I also have to ask, what are you cloning it to? If you are cloning to
another hard drive, I highly recommend saving your money and using the
software that came with the drive you are cloning to. MaxBlast is for
Maxtor drives, SeaTools for Seagate drives, etc. You can get a good
bootdisk with all of these on it from http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/

----
Nathan McNulty


Andrew Chalk wrote:
> I need to clone the hard disk containing my XP OS and applications. I know
> that there are now several 'cloning' packages available. Can anyone advise
> on the pros and cons of each?
>
> Many thanks.
>
>

Art - wasn't me trying to do the clone. But as for the Ghost issue - I once
downloaded a trial version of the basic edition of ghost. But another time I
tried to find a download from Symantec, all I could get was their enterprise
version - there was no trial version of the basic package. That's what the
problem was. i wasn't surprised by the complexity, I was more surprised that
there was no trial version of the basic edition - the one time I used it, it
was pretty good.

I do disk copies so rarely, that I won't buy the package - there will be a
new O/S & the package won't work, before I need to use it again.

Ah - how I miss XCOPY )


"Art" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Rufio" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> newsNqTc.41131$Oi.9723@fed1read04...
> > > I need to clone the hard disk containing my XP OS and applications. I
> know
> > > that there are now several 'cloning' packages available. Can anyone
> advise
> > > on the pros and cons of each?
> > >
> > > Many thanks.
> > >
> > >
>
> > "Andrew Chalk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I used to use Norton Ghost - it was quick & easy to use. Then they added
> > lots of features & it became far too complex for my tastes.
>
> Rufio:
> No doubt you'll receive a variety of responses to your inquiry, each one
> touting this or that imaging program. The likelihood is you probably won't
> go wrong with any of the more-popular ones. For myself I prefer Symantec's
> Norton
> Ghost program. I've been using the various versions for nearly four years
> now and I find this program simple to use, straightforward in operation,
and
> most importantly - effective in what does, i.e., cloning one hard disk to
> another hard disk.
>
> I'm always puzzled when I come across statements like Rufio's who
> denigrate the Ghost program because of its alleged complexity. I
frequently
> wonder whether we're all using the same program. I have often remarked
that
> I wish every software program I use was as simple, straightforward, and
> effective to use as Symantec's Norton Ghost program.
>
> Let me state at the outset that I use Ghost for one and only one purpose -
> to clone the contents of one hard drive to another hard drive. By making a
> bit-for-bit copy (not technically precise perhaps, but correct for all
> practical purposes) through the cloning process of one's working hard
drive,
> you have,
> what seems to me, the ultimate backup system. I have used various versions
> of Ghost over the years, including the present 2003 version. During that
> time I estimate I've cloned a multitude of hard drives more than a
thousand
> times. And done so with nary a hiccup. Ghost's ease of use together with
its
> reasonable speed make it a joy to use.
>
> After creating the Ghost bootable floppy disk from the Ghost program and
> booting up with that disk, the user makes a few simple keyclicks and the
> cloning process begins. What could be more simple or more effective?
>
> Art
>
>
>

What if I want to clone to a file for later copying to a disk. MaxBalst, for
one, won't do this.

What about ghost/driveimage?


"Nathan McNulty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> I also have to ask, what are you cloning it to? If you are cloning to
> another hard drive, I highly recommend saving your money and using the
> software that came with the drive you are cloning to. MaxBlast is for
> Maxtor drives, SeaTools for Seagate drives, etc. You can get a good
> bootdisk with all of these on it from http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/
>
> ----
> Nathan McNulty
>
>
> Andrew Chalk wrote:
> > I need to clone the hard disk containing my XP OS and applications. I
know
> > that there are now several 'cloning' packages available. Can anyone
advise
> > on the pros and cons of each?
> >
> > Many thanks.
> >
> >

I personally use Norton Ghost simply because I got it for free after
mail in rebates. I used a beta version of Acronis's software which I
liked even better, but I don't have the money to spend on it right now.

Truth is, just about any of these will work and you will just have to
choose the one that fits your price range and needs.

----
Nathan McNulty

Andrew Chalk wrote:
> What if I want to clone to a file for later copying to a disk. MaxBalst, for
> one, won't do this.
>
> What about ghost/driveimage?
>
>
> "Nathan McNulty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>I also have to ask, what are you cloning it to? If you are cloning to
>>another hard drive, I highly recommend saving your money and using the
>>software that came with the drive you are cloning to. MaxBlast is for
>>Maxtor drives, SeaTools for Seagate drives, etc. You can get a good
>>bootdisk with all of these on it from http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/
>>
>>----
>>Nathan McNulty
>>
>>
>>Andrew Chalk wrote:
>>
>>>I need to clone the hard disk containing my XP OS and applications. I
>
> know
>
>>>that there are now several 'cloning' packages available. Can anyone
>
> advise
>
>>>on the pros and cons of each?
>>>
>>>Many thanks.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 10:37:05 -0500, "Andrew Chalk"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I need to clone the hard disk containing my XP OS and applications. I know
>that there are now several 'cloning' packages available. Can anyone advise
>on the pros and cons of each?
>
>Many thanks.
>

I have used Acronis TrueImage, PowerQuest Drive Image, and Norton
Ghost 2003. All are capable solutions. I use trueImage to Image a
Partition to file, although Drive Image 7 is faster. I use Drive
Image to image to DVD, because Acronis requires UDF software to write
to DVD (RW), which is slow. True Image just came out with a new
version (8.0), which is almost identical to 7.0 IMO. The biggest draw
of TrueImage and Drive Image over Ghost is their ability to image your
system partition while still in windows, and their ability to mount
image files as a drive and retrieve individual files. Ghost 9.0, due
in early September will erase those deficiencies. It will be able to
image in windows, mount images and restore images created by Drive
Image 7 as well. Symantec bought PowerQuest last December. As far as
ease of use to me (YMMV), Acronis is easiest, followed by Ghost 2003
and DI7. Reliability for all is a wash. I have restored between 50 -
100 images on this system (software development tends to wreak havoc
on a system sometimes) with the only failure being with Acronis. I
doubt it was the software though, the drive failed hard the next day.
I bought a new drive and restored the image the next day. As for me,
I think I will be a Ghost 9.0 user come September.