SebastiaNot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Excuse me, Rod - me english is not as good as yours ...
> but I am interested in your opinion ...
Thats what these technical newsgroups are for.
> What do you mean by "You'd be better with True Image tho. Ghost 9 and
> 10" ?
> That TRUE IMAGE is BETTER than Ghost ?
Yes, in a number of areas. More capability, particularly being
able to create an image from the booted CD, Ghost 9 and 10
has to be installed before you can create images, you can only
restore from the booted CD.
Same with cloning a drive, normally done when you replace
the main boot drive with a bigger one. Ghost 9 and 10 cant
clone from a booted CD, you have to install it and clone at
the Win level and that is very ugly indeed.
> What do you mean "VERY DANGEROUSLY" ?
> You dont like incremental backups ?
I do like incremental backups, particularly for doing a safety backup
just before doing an install or upgrade etc, just in case the install goes
bad and the XP system restore doesnt return to the original state.
That doesnt happen often, but it does still happen. The incremental
backup is much faster than a full backup, so you are more likely to
do the incremental backup and not take the risk and not backup first.
> I never use them !
I do in that situation particularly.
Ghost 9 and 10 does incremental backups dangerously.
True Image does them safely.
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> SebastiaNot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> If I create a drive image using Ghost 10
>>> but use Ghost 9 Recovery CD
>>> will the Restore be done properly ?
>>
>> Yes. Thats one area where its a very decent product,
>> 9 and 10 will restore real dinosaur images from 2003,
>> 8, and even Drive Image too.
>>
>> You'd be better with True Image tho. Ghost 9 and 10
>> do incremental images very dangerously and cant even
>> create an image from the recovery CD at all, only restore.
>>
>> And cloning is an obscene steaming turd.
|