Ghost 9 vs. True Image 8

[Richard Urban]

Ghost 9 vs. True Image 8

Test performed 04/19/2005







Machine



M/B = Asus A7N8X deluxe revision 2

CPU = Athlon XP3200 Barton

RAM = 1.5 gig of DDR PC2100

Hard drives = W.D. 160 gig w/8 meg cache, W.D. 120 gig w/4 meg cache

Windows partition (Drive C = 20 gig (7 gig used)





Setup



The computer is setup for dual booting with 2 identical copies of Windows XP Professional SP2 (with all current Windows updates). Each is installed on a 20 gig primary DOS partition. I am using a 3rd party boot manager program (System Commander). The operating systems will henceforth be referred to as WinXP-1 and WinXP-2. When booted into one version, the other is invisible and can not be accessed. Each operating thinks that it is located on drive/partition C:



Each installation of Windows XP Professional is on a NTFS formatted partition (20 gig)





Software installed:



Microsoft Office 2003 (w/all current updates)

Visio 2002 (w/all current updates)

Adobe Acrobat 7.01

Easy CD-DVD Creator 6.0 (w/all current updates)

Adobe PhotoShop 7.01

AutoCAD 2004

Paint Shop Pro 9.0 (w/all current updates)

Microsoft Streets and Trips 2003

PerfectDisk 7.0 (build 34) latest

Norton Ghost (ver 9.0.2.3981

Acronis True Image (ver 8.0.826) latest

Many other ancillary applications and utilities



Point: Each installation, WinXP-1 and WinXP-2, are identical in every way.





Conditions:



System Restore turned off in each O/S

Same size pagefile used on each O/S (768 min - 1536 max)

Hibernation turned on in each O/S

Each instance of the operating system was given a boot time defrag using PerfectDisk 8. Upon reboot each instance of the operating system was defragged using PerfectDisk 8









Comments:

As you can guess, I have quite a few large files that are either installed on my computer by applications or that are created by the operating system.



It is important to note that True Image does NOT copy either the pagefile.sys or the hiberfil.sys during the creation of the image as per the PerfectDisk Manual.





The test - creating the image:



Immediately after defragmenting with PerfectDisk 8 I used Ghost 9.0 to create an image of WinXP-1. This image was saved to a clean hard drive formatted NTFS for the test. I used the default compression scheme in saving the image



I then did the same for WinXP-2 using PerfectDisk 8 and Acronis True Image 8. The default compression scheme was used here also.



Results and observations of image creation test:



The images created by True image took less time and the created image was approximately 10-15% smaller than the image created by Ghost 9 (using the default compression scheme in each instance)







The test - restoring the image:



WinXP-1



I used the Ghost 9 program CD to boot into the Recovery Environment. I then restored the image I had just created back to its original location.



WinXP-2



I used the recovery CD that I created from within the True Image 9 program. I then restored the image I had just created back to its original location.



Results and observations of image restore test:



During the restore operations I found that the time Acronis True Image 8 needed to restore the image was over one minute less that the time needed to restore the image created by Ghost 9. The reason being that the pagefile.sys, and the hiberfil.sys files did not have to be restored. I am certain that the compression schemes used also enter into the equation.

I then booted into WinXP-1 with no problems. I immediately opened Perfect Disk 8 and ran an analysis on drive C. The partition and file arrangement was "almost precisely" as it was after the initial defrag (before the creation of the image using Ghost 9). There was one file that was reported as being fragmented (the g3.dat file).



I then rebooted into WinXP-2 with no problems. I immediately opened Perfect Disk 8 and ran an analysis on drive C. I found that although the MFT was in the same location, the MFT Zone was in three scattered and widely separated areas. The hiberfil.sys file was in one segment but in a different area. The pagefile.sys file was fragmented into five widely segmented areas. There were also about a dozen really large files that were in a fragmented condition. It was necessary to perform boot time defrag on WinXP-2 and then perform a normal defrag as well. After doing the preceding the partition was now defragmented but was left with a different file geometry as compared to the original install (prior to imaging the partition). The pagefile.sys and the hiberfil.sys files were in an entirely new location.





Conclusion:



I had to spend an extra 35-45 minutes (reboot - defrag, reboot - defrag) to return the partitioned restored using Acronis True Image 8 to anything near its original condition.





Even though I do like some of the options offered by True Image I have decided to stay with Ghost 9.0.



The copy of True Image 8 I have turned over to one of my sons (he isn't as picky as I am).




--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[T. Waters]

Thanks for taking the trouble both to do the experiment and to report the results!
Even if the results for True Image were a bit disturbing...
Were you surprised?

Ghost 9 vs. True Image 8

Test performed 04/19/2005







Machine



M/B = Asus A7N8X deluxe revision 2

CPU = Athlon XP3200 Barton

RAM = 1.5 gig of DDR PC2100

Hard drives = W.D. 160 gig w/8 meg cache, W.D. 120 gig w/4 meg cache

Windows partition (Drive C = 20 gig (7 gig used)





Setup



The computer is setup for dual booting with 2 identical copies of Windows XP Professional SP2 (with all current Windows updates). Each is installed on a 20 gig primary DOS partition. I am using a 3rd party boot manager program (System Commander). The operating systems will henceforth be referred to as WinXP-1 and WinXP-2. When booted into one version, the other is invisible and can not be accessed. Each operating thinks that it is located on drive/partition C:



Each installation of Windows XP Professional is on a NTFS formatted partition (20 gig)





Software installed:



Microsoft Office 2003 (w/all current updates)

Visio 2002 (w/all current updates)

Adobe Acrobat 7.01

Easy CD-DVD Creator 6.0 (w/all current updates)

Adobe PhotoShop 7.01

AutoCAD 2004

Paint Shop Pro 9.0 (w/all current updates)

Microsoft Streets and Trips 2003

PerfectDisk 7.0 (build 34) latest

Norton Ghost (ver 9.0.2.3981

Acronis True Image (ver 8.0.826) latest

Many other ancillary applications and utilities



Point: Each installation, WinXP-1 and WinXP-2, are identical in every way.





Conditions:



System Restore turned off in each O/S

Same size pagefile used on each O/S (768 min - 1536 max)

Hibernation turned on in each O/S

Each instance of the operating system was given a boot time defrag using PerfectDisk 8. Upon reboot each instance of the operating system was defragged using PerfectDisk 8









Comments:

As you can guess, I have quite a few large files that are either installed on my computer by applications or that are created by the operating system.



It is important to note that True Image does NOT copy either the pagefile.sys or the hiberfil.sys during the creation of the image as per the PerfectDisk Manual.





The test - creating the image:



Immediately after defragmenting with PerfectDisk 8 I used Ghost 9.0 to create an image of WinXP-1. This image was saved to a clean hard drive formatted NTFS for the test. I used the default compression scheme in saving the image



I then did the same for WinXP-2 using PerfectDisk 8 and Acronis True Image 8. The default compression scheme was used here also.



Results and observations of image creation test:



The images created by True image took less time and the created image was approximately 10-15% smaller than the image created by Ghost 9 (using the default compression scheme in each instance)







The test - restoring the image:



WinXP-1



I used the Ghost 9 program CD to boot into the Recovery Environment. I then restored the image I had just created back to its original location.



WinXP-2



I used the recovery CD that I created from within the True Image 9 program. I then restored the image I had just created back to its original location.



Results and observations of image restore test:



During the restore operations I found that the time Acronis True Image 8 needed to restore the image was over one minute less that the time needed to restore the image created by Ghost 9. The reason being that the pagefile.sys, and the hiberfil.sys files did not have to be restored. I am certain that the compression schemes used also enter into the equation.

I then booted into WinXP-1 with no problems. I immediately opened Perfect Disk 8 and ran an analysis on drive C. The partition and file arrangement was "almost precisely" as it was after the initial defrag (before the creation of the image using Ghost 9). There was one file that was reported as being fragmented (the g3.dat file).



I then rebooted into WinXP-2 with no problems. I immediately opened Perfect Disk 8 and ran an analysis on drive C. I found that although the MFT was in the same location, the MFT Zone was in three scattered and widely separated areas. The hiberfil.sys file was in one segment but in a different area. The pagefile.sys file was fragmented into five widely segmented areas. There were also about a dozen really large files that were in a fragmented condition. It was necessary to perform boot time defrag on WinXP-2 and then perform a normal defrag as well. After doing the preceding the partition was now defragmented but was left with a different file geometry as compared to the original install (prior to imaging the partition). The pagefile.sys and the hiberfil.sys files were in an entirely new location.





Conclusion:



I had to spend an extra 35-45 minutes (reboot - defrag, reboot - defrag) to return the partitioned restored using Acronis True Image 8 to anything near its original condition.





Even though I do like some of the options offered by True Image I have decided to stay with Ghost 9.0.



The copy of True Image 8 I have turned over to one of my sons (he isn't as picky as I am).




--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Richard Urban]

I was extremely surprised as I was intending to switch over to True Image
for the smaller image sizes. I also liked that I could create a hidden
partition on a drive to store the image in. I would have used this on my
customers computers.

I will continue using Partition Magic 8.01 to create the hidden partition
and Ghost 9 to create the images.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


Thanks for taking the trouble both to do the experiment and to report the
results!
Even if the results for True Image were a bit disturbing...
Were you surprised?

 

[Richard Urban]

I am so, so sorry!

Please change all references of PerfectDisk 8 - TO - **PerfectDisk 7**.

And thank you to Sarah Balfour for bringing this to my attention!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Richard Urban]

I just found this on the PC World web site in a review of True Image 8. Now
I am confused.

******************************

Like Ghost 9, True Image 8 skips the re-creatable swap and hibernation
files, yielding similar speeds and even smaller image sizes.

******************************

I have to wonder how Ghost 9 is able to replace the pagefile.sys, the
hiberfil.sys, the MFT, the MFT zone etc. back in the exact same location -
while True Image 8 can't.

Maybe Ghost records "place holders" during the image that are utilized when
rebooting into the operating system after a restore??


--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


Thanks for taking the trouble both to do the experiment and to report the
results!
Even if the results for True Image were a bit disturbing...
Were you surprised?

 

[T. Waters]

That must be it. Acronis ought to take a page from their book.

 

[Fred S]

Crusty,

I suggest you seriously consider Terabyte's BootITNG (Bing) which was so
strongly endorsed by the late Alex Nichol. I switched over from Drive
Image (by PowerQuest) and partition Magic. There is no need for either
of them as Bing handles everything they did and more and on ONE FLOPPY.

I also use Image for Windows which creates image files from within
Windows as Acronis does.

Bing has a utility that allows one to retrieve individual files/data
from image files as needed at any time. Bing has the only true byte for
byte verification too.

On the negative side, the size of the images are slightly larger than my
previous Drive Image files and the compression is either on or off. Also
the interface is a little "clumsy" but the program is rock-solid and
can't be beat in my opinion. I've been using it now for over two years
on numerous machines without ever having a problem.

Fred

 

[Richard Urban]

When, and if, I buy it I will do a similar test!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP\)]

Richard, very concise test and I certainly appreciate the work you did and
posting the results.

It appears the major difference is the fact that True Image doesn't copy
pagefile.sys and hiberfil.sys and that would seem to be the reason for the
required extra work it entailed to get things back to their original
condition for you.

In a recent review of True Image 8 in the May 2005 issue of Computer Shopper
Magazine, it mentions that Ghost doesn't offer the ability to format and
partition disks. I don't think Ghost could ever partition but I thought it
could at one time format. Since Symantec purchased PowerQuest and now has
separate applications for partitioning and imaging it will likely remain
that way. I make this point because True Image offers both the ability to
partition and image and for $20 less than users would pay for Ghost or
Partition Magic separately and I thought that might be worth noting.

That said, I was previously using PowerQuest's Drive Image which has
replaced Symantec's Ghost (Though now called Ghost) and I have to admit, I
had a decided preference for it. I haven't made a decision as yet about how
I'll precede in the future with regard to replacing my current versions of
Partition Magic and Drive Image. I recently tested True Image myself and
strictly subjectively speaking, I still preferred Partition Magic and Drive
Image. I think though, it had a lot to do with the familiarity to me of
their respective interfaces.
--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol.

Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvp.aspx
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/


Ghost 9 vs. True
Image 8

Test performed
04/19/2005

 

[Richard Urban]

Thanks!

I was a bit tired after testing, when I wrote this up - hence me starting to
type PerfectDisk 8 (which doesn't even exist)! (-:

Anyway, there are still certain things that I DO like about True Image. I
just "may" start using the recovery CD during my construction of the many
PC's I build. This would be to break off a portion of the customers hard
drive to store a copy of the completed O/S on. True Image hides this
partition, as I do with Partition Magic, so the customer can't screw with
it! It makes life easier 6 months down the road when they bring the computer
back loaded with nasties.

I just won't use it, at this point, on my own computers.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP\)]

Fred, it does come highly recommended and is a very strong tool. However, I
think it is important to stress as you mentioned, its interface is not as
easy or intuitive for many users as PM, Drive Image and True Image, making
it easier to make a mistake or simply find yourself lost. Drive Image
(Ghost 9.0) and True Image 8 both offer the ability to retrieve individual
files/data from image files as needed at any time.

It is, nonetheless, a very powerful tool, I just stress caution for the
average user.

--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol.

Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvp.aspx
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

 

[Modem Ani]

I gave True Image 8 a real hard look. I liked it as an imaging tool, but I
stuck with Ghost 9 because Ghost had certain features that were important to
me that True Image lacked, viz., the ability to automatically verify an
image after creation and 'set it and forget it' scheduling. When/if these
features appear in True Image I just might switch, especially if Acronis
comes up with a cross-grade rebate. I prefer Acronis' user forums to
Symantec's tech support.

Modem Ani

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP\)]

You're welcome.

Heck of an idea for system builders, Richard!

Of course, then we'll start fielding a bunch of questions in these groups
over why the user is supposed to have a particular size hard drive and for
some reason, it's smaller...oh, wait, we already do get those!<VBG>

Hey, all those different products and version numbers get confusing after
awhile!

--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol.

Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvp.aspx
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

 

[Richard Urban]

I'm an "up front" type of guy. I always tell the customer what I have done
and why I did it. I have never had any objections. Most new systems can well
afford 4-6 gig of "wasted" space!


--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP\)]

Given what you are using it for, I'd say it's not the least bit "wasted."
Given the size of hard drives today, it's something more system builders
should consider.

The majors have been doing it for awhile, though with them, it's too often
provided INSTEAD of giving the user a CD of the OS and while it is explained
in their documentation, if users would just read the part about "recovery,"
they aren't up front about it.

--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol.

Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvp.aspx
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

 

[Stan Brown]

During the restore operations I found that the time Acronis True Image 8 needed to restore the image was over one minute less that the time needed to restore the image created by Ghost 9. The reason being that the pagefile.sys, and the hiberfil.sys files did not have to be restored. I am certain that the compression schemes used also enter into the equation.

Sorry, I don't understand. What sense does it make to restore the
page file or hibernation file, since Windows creates them
automatically anyway?

 

[Guest]

I just found this on the PC World web site in a review of True Image 8.
Now I am confused.

******************************

Like Ghost 9, True Image 8 skips the re-creatable swap and hibernation
files, yielding similar speeds and even smaller image sizes.

******************************

I have to wonder how Ghost 9 is able to replace the pagefile.sys, the
hiberfil.sys, the MFT, the MFT zone etc. back in the exact same
location - while True Image 8 can't.

It's been awhile (several months) since I looked at Acronis. My
recollection is that it is still a logical backup program; i.e., it
reads through the file system. That means it also restores through the
file system. Ghost 9 (which is now based on Powerquest's DriveImage)
save and restores by sectors; i.e., it doesn't care what file system is
use in the partition and instead does a physical read and write by
sectors. For the older Ghost versions, you have to include the /IA
command-line parameter to force Ghost to save a physical image instead
of a logical one. Otherwise, if you have EFS-protected folders and
files, you won't be able to restore them because the security cert isn't
yet in place when you do the restore of those EFS-protected files.
Symantec's solution they told me was to remove EFS from all files and
folders before saving the image, and hope that I remember to reapply EFS
(using the same cert) on some much later restore. Yeah, right.

Now that they dumped the old Ghost code and went with the DriveImage
code in version 9, Ghost 9 is now equivalent to DriveImage 8. Because
Ghost reads sector-by-sector to save an image, you get back exactly what
you had before on a restore when it writes back to the same sectors (or
to a different relative offset if you move the partition). Acronis'
restore is logical, not physical. On a restore using Ghost 9
(DriveImage), you get back the same exact file placement as before, so
you also get the exact same defragmentation as before. With Acronis,
you are doing logical writes. Since I want back exactly what I had
before, a physical image is required. If you had file table problems,
like cross-linked files, orphaned clusters, and whatnot, you'll have
them again exactly as they were on a restore of the physical image, so
you should run CHKDSK before saving an image to make sure you don't
carry forward those problems should you need to do a restore later.

 

[Richard Urban]

Because Windows may not have enough contiguous free space to create the
pagefile.sys as one chunk. You then will have a fragmented pagefile. Same
for the hiberfil.sys. Both of these files can be extremely large and need a
large amount of contiguous free space to be recreated in one piece.
Therefore it is better to put them back exactly as they were when the drive
image was created.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Lil' Dave]

Thank you for taking the time to post your findings. I find it hard to
believe that backup software (True Image 8.0) is copying the swapfile.
Heck, even much older 9X based filecopy systems don't do that for obvious
reasons.

The comparison is mundane as there doesn't appear to be much difference
other than some minor fragmentation and minor restoration time difference.

Would like to see comparisons of various external backup file sources such
as USB/Firewire drives, DVD writers etc. for restoration of the boot
partition regarding both Ghost and True Image, specifically, NTFS type of
partition Specifics such a the USB chipset, onboard or add-on may be
important. USB drive access at boot time via the bios etc. may also be a
factor. This is where the glitch lies for many that are using same to
backup to. This would provide guidance for potential users of such
software, and would rock the makers of this software to better overall
usability.

Am a user of the former Drive Image 7.0, and have both backed up and
restored XP SP1 boot partitions in NTFS format using the imaging process.
Have not used Ghost 9.0, but my understanding is the GUI has slightly
changed, and has added hardware drives for better external support are the
only real differences.

As far as underlying operating systems on the boot CD/floppy on Ghost 9.0 is
that it used Windows PE. True Image uses Linux. This may account for the
hardware driver database difference on the boot media.

Ghost 9 vs. True
Image 8
Test performed
04/19/2005



Machine

M/B = Asus A7N8X deluxe revision 2
CPU = Athlon XP3200 Barton
RAM = 1.5 gig of DDR PC2100
Hard drives = W.D. 160 gig w/8 meg cache, W.D. 120 gig w/4 meg cache
Windows partition (Drive C = 20 gig (7 gig used)


Setup

The computer is setup for dual booting with 2 identical copies of Windows XP
Professional SP2 (with all current Windows updates). Each is installed on a
20 gig primary DOS partition. I am using a 3rd party boot manager program
(System Commander). The operating systems will henceforth be referred to as
WinXP-1 and WinXP-2. When booted into one version, the other is invisible
and can not be accessed. Each operating thinks that it is located on
drive/partition C:

Each installation of Windows XP Professional is on a NTFS formatted
partition (20 gig)


Software installed:

Microsoft Office 2003 (w/all current updates)
Visio 2002 (w/all current updates)
Adobe Acrobat 7.01
Easy CD-DVD Creator 6.0 (w/all current updates)
Adobe PhotoShop 7.01
AutoCAD 2004
Paint Shop Pro 9.0 (w/all current updates)
Microsoft Streets and Trips 2003
PerfectDisk 7.0 (build 34) latest
Norton Ghost (ver 9.0.2.3981
Acronis True Image (ver 8.0.826) latest
Many other ancillary applications and utilities

Point: Each installation, WinXP-1 and WinXP-2, are identical in every way.


Conditions:

System Restore turned off in each O/S
Same size pagefile used on each O/S (768 min - 1536 max)
Hibernation turned on in each O/S
Each instance of the operating system was given a boot time defrag using
PerfectDisk 8. Upon reboot each instance of the operating system was
defragged using PerfectDisk 8




Comments:
As you can guess, I have quite a few large files that are either installed
on my computer by applications or that are created by the operating system.

It is important to note that True Image does NOT copy either the
pagefile.sys or the hiberfil.sys during the creation of the image as per the
PerfectDisk Manual.


The test - creating the image:

Immediately after defragmenting with PerfectDisk 8 I used Ghost 9.0 to
create an image of WinXP-1. This image was saved to a clean hard drive
formatted NTFS for the test. I used the default compression scheme in saving
the image

I then did the same for WinXP-2 using PerfectDisk 8 and Acronis True Image
8. The default compression scheme was used here also.

Results and observations of image creation test:

The images created by True image took less time and the created image was
approximately 10-15% smaller than the image created by Ghost 9 (using the
default compression scheme in each instance)



The test - restoring the image:

WinXP-1

I used the Ghost 9 program CD to boot into the Recovery Environment. I then
restored the image I had just created back to its original location.

WinXP-2

I used the recovery CD that I created from within the True Image 9 program.
I then restored the image I had just created back to its original location.

Results and observations of image restore test:

During the restore operations I found that the time Acronis True Image 8
needed to restore the image was over one minute less that the time needed to
restore the image created by Ghost 9. The reason being that the
pagefile.sys, and the hiberfil.sys files did not have to be restored. I am
certain that the compression schemes used also enter into the equation.
I then booted into WinXP-1 with no problems. I immediately opened Perfect
Disk 8 and ran an analysis on drive C. The partition and file arrangement
was "almost precisely" as it was after the initial defrag (before the
creation of the image using Ghost 9). There was one file that was reported
as being fragmented (the g3.dat file).

I then rebooted into WinXP-2 with no problems. I immediately opened Perfect
Disk 8 and ran an analysis on drive C. I found that although the MFT was in
the same location, the MFT Zone was in three scattered and widely separated
areas. The hiberfil.sys file was in one segment but in a different area. The
pagefile.sys file was fragmented into five widely segmented areas. There
were also about a dozen really large files that were in a fragmented
condition. It was necessary to perform boot time defrag on WinXP-2 and then
perform a normal defrag as well. After doing the preceding the partition was
now defragmented but was left with a different file geometry as compared to
the original install (prior to imaging the partition). The pagefile.sys and
the hiberfil.sys files were in an entirely new location.


Conclusion:

I had to spend an extra 35-45 minutes (reboot - defrag, reboot - defrag) to
return the partitioned restored using Acronis True Image 8 to anything near
its original condition.


Even though I do like some of the options offered by True Image I have
decided to stay with Ghost 9.0.

The copy of True Image 8 I have turned over to one of my sons (he isn't as
picky as I am).


--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Richard]

Whilst I admire your efforts in making the comparison between the two
systems I find, because of the way I set up and use my computer, that your
timings and conclusions are not relevant to me. I hope that you have not
put off people from going the Acronis route. I have used both and find
Acronis far easier to understand and use. It is faster, has much better
interfaces,uses less system resources, can restore to a smaller drive than
the original if needed and support is streets ahead of that which I found at
Symantec.

I have a slave to my main drive which has three partitions. One is for the
Windows Page file. One is for Photoshop Scratch disk and the rest of the
drive is occupied by the Acronis Secure zone. I do not use hibernation. Set
up like this there is none of the fragmentation that seems to concern you.
Indeed many weeks go by before I even consider looking to see if the main
drive could benefit from a defrag. With the speed and buffering of modern
drives several percentage points of fragmentation do not seem to affect my
system at all.

My hidden secure zone contains at any one time 21 to 28 days of backups.
These consist of three or four weekly full backups with daily incremental
backups. All these backups are scheduled and run automatically with no
intervention by myself apart from a glance at the log from time to time to
make sure there have been no hang-ups. When the backups are running in the
background there is practically no impact on system performance, when
running on low priority,unlike Ghost 9 which used to slow my computer right
down.

With Ghost 9 I used image verification on each backup. I do not use it with
Acronis unless I am actually going to do a disaster recovery over the top of
my live system. All other testing I have done has been in a failsafe manner
so a recovery failure would not be a problem.

Richard Hawkins.