NORTON or ACRONIS?

[Guest Dave Candi]

I need to buy a good imaging program and also want one thats intuitive and

used widely in the work place etc.. Would Norton or Acronis do the job and if

so which is better more widely used by techy pips?

[Guest Newbie Coder]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

Dave,

 

Been using Norton Ghost Enterprise for many years & would highly recommend it

 

--

Newbie Coder

(It's just a name)

 

 

 

"Dave Candi" <DaveCandi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:A44AC0A7-440D-49AB-A3FA-7BE6CDC07E09@microsoft.com...

> I need to buy a good imaging program and also want one thats intuitive and

> used widely in the work place etc.. Would Norton or Acronis do the job and if

> so which is better more widely used by techy pips?

[Guest Zilbandy]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:16:00 -0700, Dave Candi

<DaveCandi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Would Norton or Acronis do the job and if

>so which is better more widely used by techy pips?

 

Unlike Newbie Coder, I've never used Norton Ghost. I've used Acronis

True Image for several years now and have had no problems with it. So,

we're 1 for Norton, 1 for Acronis. :)

 

--

Zilbandy

[Guest Uncle Grumpy]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

Zilbandy <zil@zilbandyREMOVETHIS.com> wrote:

>Unlike Newbie Coder, I've never used Norton Ghost. I've used Acronis

>True Image for several years now and have had no problems with it. So,

>we're 1 for Norton, 1 for Acronis. :)

 

I used Norton Ghost for years here too (stopped with 7, I think). No

complaints, but when I first tried Acronis, I was intrigued by its

ability to image my drive while I was still in Windows and that it

could easily restore individual files/directories, etc. the same.

 

Started with Acronis TI 8, and it's now at 10.

 

Highly recommended.

[Guest Ken Blake]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

Zilbandy wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:16:00 -0700, Dave Candi

> <DaveCandi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>

>> Would Norton or Acronis do the job and if

>> so which is better more widely used by techy pips?

>

> Unlike Newbie Coder, I've never used Norton Ghost. I've used Acronis

> True Image for several years now and have had no problems with it. So,

> we're 1 for Norton, 1 for Acronis. :)

 

 

I've used both. The score is now two for Acronis, one for Norton.

 

--

Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User

Please reply to the newsgroup

[Guest XS11E]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

Dave Candi <DaveCandi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> I need to buy a good imaging program and also want one thats

> intuitive and used widely in the work place etc.. Would Norton or

> Acronis do the job and if so which is better more widely used by

> techy pips?

 

I'm not a techy pips, don't even know what that is?

 

I use Acronis. I like it, it works. Just updated to version 10.

 

 

 

--

XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups

The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

[Guest Zilbandy]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:48:52 GMT, Uncle Grumpy

<unclegrumpy@ameritech.net> wrote:

>Started with Acronis TI 8, and it's now at 10.

 

I started with version 7, then skipped straight to 10.

 

--

Zilbandy

[Guest C J.]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

Three votes for Acronis now.

 

I've used a smaller version called EZ_GIG which is also made by Acronis

Trueimage - that was in a kit for cloning laptop harddrives.

 

I've used it several times since on other peoples PCs with larger capacity

drives - as well as my own laptop and desktop PC.

I plan to pick up Acronis 10 this week.

 

Dave Candi <DaveCandi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> I need to buy a good imaging program and also want one thats intuitive and

> used widely in the work place etc.. Would Norton or Acronis do the job

> and if so which is better more widely used by techy pips?

[Guest Fred S *****]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

Dave,

 

I realize you asked about Norton and Acronis only but the most powerful

and reliable program is BootIT NG or BING for short.

 

Look here:

 

http://terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html

 

Terabyte software has been used and recommended for years by numerous

MVPs, one of which was the late Alex Nichol.

 

In my opinion, BING is far superior to the others.

 

For what it's worth,

 

Fred

 

Dave Candi wrote:

> I need to buy a good imaging program and also want one thats intuitive and

> used widely in the work place etc.. Would Norton or Acronis do the job and if

> so which is better more widely used by techy pips?

[Guest Uncle Grumpy]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

Fred S ***** <Fred@anonymous.com> wrote:

>Terabyte software has been used and recommended for years by numerous

>MVPs, one of which was the late Alex Nichol.

 

And by far the most times that it's been recommended here is because

it has a free trial period and folks are thus able to use it for a

one-time need for partitioning.

 

I used it for maybe a year (registered it) and didn't like it. The

endless updates started to piss me off, among other reasons.

[Guest Vanguard]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

"Dave Candi" wrote in message

news:A44AC0A7-440D-49AB-A3FA-7BE6CDC07E09@microsoft.com...

>I need to buy a good imaging program and also want one thats intuitive

>and

> used widely in the work place etc.. Would Norton or Acronis do the job

> and if

> so which is better more widely used by techy pips?

 

 

Be aware that if you are thinking of the Home version of Acronis True

Image, it lacks several features which are considered mandatory even for

a single-workstation backup. It doesn't support Volume Shadow Copy.

Although the Volume Shadow Service (VSS) may be enabled or automatic, TI

Home won't use it. That means during the backup that inuse files cannot

be backed up because they are locked. It also means that during the

lengthy backup time that the files can change so what gets saved are

files that are out of sync with each other.

 

For a logical file backup program, Acronis is not a good choice. Even

the NT Backup program included in Windows supports VSS. Rather than

provide the customary grandfather-father-son expiration scheme for

backups (by using catalogs of the backups), TI Home instead relies on

defining a max disk space quota for the backup location (which the user

must configure separately); otherwise, TI Home will just keep adding

more backup files until all the disk space gets consumed. This use of

disk quota by its backup files means that incrementals and differentials

that are no longer applicable after a full backup will remain in the

backup location until that backup location gets bigger than what the

user configured for its maximum disk consumption. Also, disk quota

doesn't apply to their Secure Zone which will simply fill up and run out

of space until you delete the old and non-applicable backup files.

 

Supposedly TI Home has priority levels for the backups but I found that

anything other than Low results in a locked up system (or so slow that

it can take 10 to 15 minutes just to get Task Manager to show up). The

CPU usage is at 100% but the TrueImageService.exe process is at the

selected priority so it is supposed cooperate with other processes;

however, the program floods the data bus with backup traffic which

effectively locks up the host.

 

Back when I used Ghost (pre-DriveImage version), it defaulted to saving

logical partition images. That is, it read the files through the file

system and that's what it put in the image file. That means you really

don't end up restoring exactly what was there before. To get exactly

what you had before, you need to save a *phsyical* partition image and

that means reading the sectors. A feature may be the file system gets

used to determine which sectors are not currently allocated by the OS in

that partition to reduce the number of sectors in the physical image

file (to reduce the size of the image file). With Ghost, you had to

specify a command-line parameter to force it to perform a physical

image. DriveImage did physical images (with reading through a

recognized file system to exclude the unused sectors) so I suspect

that's what Ghost does now. With Acronis True Image Home, the only way

a physical image gets saved is if the file system is corrupted or it

can't recognize the file system to read the files through it. Acronis

will always do a logical image and there is no option to force it to

save a physical image. Also, any image program that doesn't force a

reboot of the OS to ensure the partition being imaged is in stasis might

end up with an image that isn't exactly what was there when the imaging

process started (since VSS can't be used for a static snapshot of the

files since sectors are being read, not files). Acronis TI Home doesn't

save physical images and it can't use VSS for logical file backups.

 

The only reason why I bother to leave TI Home installed is because it is

now my only partition imaging program as my old version of DriveImage

stopped working. DriveImage was made by Powerquest that got bought out

by Symantec who then replaced their old Ghost engine with the one in

DriveImage.

 

Before getting commercialware, you might want to visit their forums.

For Acronis True Image, visit

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65. Just remember

that most posts will be negative since users are going there to get help

with the product, not to extol its virtues.

 

For the $30 that I paid for TI Home, I pretty much got a personal backup

program that only does logical backups (and only does logical imaging).

However, because it doesn't support VSS and because I'm not going to

waste even more money to buy their Workstation or Server versions that

do support VSS, I was thinking of reverting to NT Backup for the logical

file backups because I can configure it to overwrite the backup files in

a grandfather-father-son scheme, it supports VSS, and my host doesn't

lockup during the backups; however, the big flaw with NT Backup is that

it doesn't itself support compression. If the [tape] drive supports

hardware-based compression then it will enable that function but it will

not compress when writing the backup file to a hard drive. Actually I

had the Veritas Backup Exec Desktop program which is the uncrippled

version of NT Backup. Veritas sold it to StompInc which renamed it to

Backup MyPC which became Migos Software and is now called PC Backup.

That backup program supported everything in NT Backup supports but also

would compress to any destination media and supported more media types.

Alas, Backup Exec Desktop stopped working a year ago so I uninstalled it

and now I can't find the install CD to retry it.

 

Eventually I'll get Ghost and dump True Image Home to give me the

ability to save *physical* images. For logical file backups, I am

unimpressed with True Image Home (for more money, the Workstation

version is probably better if only because Acronis claims that it

supports VSS). Hell, Comodo Backup seems to have more options and is

free (but I haven't done an in-depth trial of it yet). For images, and

because TI Home only does logical imaging, I'll have to find something

else that saves physical images.

 

Learn and burn.

[Guest Brian A.]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

I use both ATI Enterprise Server and Ghost 9. Both ATI and Ghost have slightly

different learning curves depending on their use, I recommend either.

 

--

 

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }

Conflicts start where information lacks.

http://basconotw.mvps.org/

 

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

 

 

"Dave Candi" <DaveCandi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:A44AC0A7-440D-49AB-A3FA-7BE6CDC07E09@microsoft.com...

>I need to buy a good imaging program and also want one thats intuitive and

> used widely in the work place etc.. Would Norton or Acronis do the job and if

> so which is better more widely used by techy pips?

[Guest Timothy Daniels]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS or CASPER?

 

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS or CASPER?

 

"Dave Candi" wrote:

>I need to buy a good imaging program and also want one

> thats intuitive and used widely in the work place etc..

> Would Norton or Acronis do the job and if

> so which is better more widely used by techy pips?

 

It depends on the usage. If you want to do cloning

(making byte-for-byte bootable HD copies of a partition),

as opposed to imaging (making a file, usually compressed,

onto arbitrary media, that can be uncompressed and

re-loaded onto a HD), and if that clone must be just

one partition among several on the source HD and it

is to be put among several on the destination HD, then

only Ghost and Casper can do it directly, i.e. without

the kloodge of going through an intermediate image stage.

Ghost is currently published by Symantec, and

Casper is published by Future Systems Solutions

(http://www.FSSdev.com/products/casper).

 

*TimDaniels*

[Guest Zilbandy]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:26:44 -0500, "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid>

wrote:

>Be aware that if you are thinking of the Home version of Acronis True

>Image, it lacks several features which are considered mandatory even for

>a single-workstation backup. It doesn't support Volume Shadow Copy.

>Although the Volume Shadow Service (VSS) may be enabled or automatic, TI

>Home won't use it. That means during the backup that inuse files cannot

>be backed up because they are locked. It also means that during the

>lengthy backup time that the files can change so what gets saved are

>files that are out of sync with each other.

 

I use Acronis Home v10 and it backs up everything just fine. It does

make a copy of files in use and backs them up. Whether it could do

better is not an issue for me. I just put a new hard drive in my wifes

laptop, booted from the Acronis Recovery CD, and restored her system

from the last image created. Rebooted computer and it booted just

fine... just like it was when the backup was made. What else would you

need?

 

--

Zilbandy

[Guest M.I.5¾]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

 

"Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid> wrote in message

news:Ob7L7zQyHHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> "Dave Candi" wrote in message

> news:A44AC0A7-440D-49AB-A3FA-7BE6CDC07E09@microsoft.com...

>>I need to buy a good imaging program and also want one thats intuitive and

>> used widely in the work place etc.. Would Norton or Acronis do the job

>> and if

>> so which is better more widely used by techy pips?

>

>

> Be aware that if you are thinking of the Home version of Acronis True

> Image, it lacks several features which are considered mandatory even for a

> single-workstation backup. It doesn't support Volume Shadow Copy.

> Although the Volume Shadow Service (VSS) may be enabled or automatic, TI

> Home won't use it. That means during the backup that inuse files cannot

> be backed up because they are locked. It also means that during the

> lengthy backup time that the files can change so what gets saved are files

> that are out of sync with each other.

>

[snipped for Brevity]

 

It should be remebered that neither Ghost nor TrueImage are intended or

marketed as backup software. They are however perfectly capable of serving

that function for the majority of home users if due note is taken of their

limitations. I have restored TrueImage backups in anger so can atest that

it does work in this role.

 

You will generally find that any user will recommend the product with which

they are familiar (the vote being more or less evenly split). My suggestion

is that the OP looks at the features offered by both products and picks the

one that most closely meets what he expects.

 

I would not recommend either product for backup use in a more demanding

environment.

[Guest XS11E]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

"Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid> wrote:

> Be aware that if you are thinking of the Home version of Acronis

> True Image, it lacks several features which are considered

> mandatory even for a single-workstation backup. It doesn't

> support Volume Shadow Copy. Although the Volume Shadow Service

> (VSS) may be enabled or automatic, TI Home won't use it. That

> means during the backup that inuse files cannot be backed up

> because they are locked. It also means that during the lengthy

> backup time that the files can change so what gets saved are files

> that are out of sync with each other.

 

The above is incorrect, apparently you haven't used a current version

of Acronis? There's been a bunch of improvements since version 7 to

which the above may apply, I do know version 7 is much slower than the

later versions....

 

BTW, the shadow copy issue should not be an issue, all images SHOULD be

made by booting from the Acronis CD or from the Rescue CD. There are a

bunch of advantages of doing so, particularly with an earlier version.

 

 

 

--

XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups

The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

[Guest Lil' Dave]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

"Uncle Grumpy" <unclegrumpy@ameritech.net> wrote in message

news:kvdr935v163n6feipnfmmtgpo0nm1kqjfn@4ax.com...

> Fred S ***** <Fred@anonymous.com> wrote:

>

>>Terabyte software has been used and recommended for years by numerous

>>MVPs, one of which was the late Alex Nichol.

>

> And by far the most times that it's been recommended here is because

> it has a free trial period and folks are thus able to use it for a

> one-time need for partitioning.

>

> I used it for maybe a year (registered it) and didn't like it. The

> endless updates started to piss me off, among other reasons.

 

Out of curiosity, what was it updating specifically all those millions of

updates?

Dave

[Guest Lil' Dave]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS or CASPER?

 

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS or CASPER?

 

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message

news:469dcdc6$0$20548$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> "Dave Candi" wrote:

>>I need to buy a good imaging program and also want one

>> thats intuitive and used widely in the work place etc..

>> Would Norton or Acronis do the job and if so which is better more widely

>> used by techy pips?

>

> It depends on the usage. If you want to do cloning

> (making byte-for-byte bootable HD copies of a partition),

> as opposed to imaging (making a file, usually compressed,

> onto arbitrary media, that can be uncompressed and

> re-loaded onto a HD), and if that clone must be just

> one partition among several on the source HD and it

> is to be put among several on the destination HD, then

> only Ghost and Casper can do it directly, i.e. without

> the kloodge of going through an intermediate image stage.

> Ghost is currently published by Symantec, and

> Casper is published by Future Systems Solutions

> (http://www.FSSdev.com/products/casper).

>

> *TimDaniels*

 

Believe Dave Candi was perfectly clear in stating he was inquiring about

buying an imaging program. Not cloning. Or, did I miss something?

Dave

[Guest Lil' Dave]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

I think Acronis is broken for my own purposes, if the freebie at Seagate

website is any indication provided by Acronis. The XP partition image

restores all resulted in inop boot partitions, I did more than one image on

more than one hard drive. Same results.

 

Hard drive copy drive to drive results were slightly different. The copied

XP partition didn't boot. The source XP partition results in failed hal.dll

after the copy. Go figure. Know you didn't inquire about cloning.

Nonetheless, those were the results. Used the boot CD for the application

BTW.

 

My intention was to make an identical hard drive a copy of the 1st. After

fixing the 1st hard drive XP, I ended up copying partitions from the first

to the second using Partition Commander. Successful.

 

My feeling is that the Acronis application provided to Seagate has trouble

with SATAs remapped to ide, as is my case. Both are SATAII Seagate 250GBs.

 

DriveImage 7.0 worked okay. I've had trouble with it as of late with

verification of the image. That's why I tried the Acronis product. Fixed

the DI 7.0 intermittent problem by stopping the Diskeeper thing with

ctrl-alt-del.

 

Dave

 

"Dave Candi" <DaveCandi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:A44AC0A7-440D-49AB-A3FA-7BE6CDC07E09@microsoft.com...

>I need to buy a good imaging program and also want one thats intuitive and

> used widely in the work place etc.. Would Norton or Acronis do the job and

> if

> so which is better more widely used by techy pips?

[Guest Vanguard]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

"Zilbandy" wrote in message

news:e9kr93pu0ns0cn8pp0knko76mn2k3vgnfu@4ax.com...

>

> "Vanguard" wrote:

>

>>Be aware that if you are thinking of the Home version of Acronis True

>>Image, it lacks several features which are considered mandatory even

>>for

>>a single-workstation backup. It doesn't support Volume Shadow Copy.

>>Although the Volume Shadow Service (VSS) may be enabled or automatic,

>>TI

>>Home won't use it. That means during the backup that inuse files

>>cannot

>>be backed up because they are locked. It also means that during the

>>lengthy backup time that the files can change so what gets saved are

>>files that are out of sync with each other.

>

> I use Acronis Home v10 and it backs up everything just fine. It does

> make a copy of files in use and backs them up.

 

If the file is locked, TI Home can't read it which means it cannot back

it up. Although not always the cause, database files may be locked and

is often the complaint that Acronis gets regarding this issue. Their

solution is to upgrade from the Home to Workstation version that does

support Volume Shadow Copy.

> I just put a new hard drive in my wifes

> laptop, booted from the Acronis Recovery CD, and restored her system

> from the last image created. Rebooted computer and it booted just

> fine... just like it was when the backup was made. What else would you

> need?

 

A logical image is likely to restore a partition to a usable state but

the partition is not restored to exactly the SAME state. Sectors are

not in the same locations and the files will use different sectors.

 

Shaking a Cracker Jack box will still contain toy inside but it won't be

in the same position. A partition restore from a logical image is no

different than a file restore: the file's contents will be there but not

using the same sectors. Also, have you yet performed a partition

restore using TI Home when you are using EFS to encrypt your files?

During the logical file restore, the OS is not yet fully in place and

the EFS certificate may not yet have been restored so that the EFS

encrypted files can be read from the backup image file. That means you

lose your EFS-protected files. Same problem happens if you ran the old

Ghost version that defaulted to logical image saves.

 

A physical image that reads and writes by sectors doesn't give a gnat's

fart what operating system is used or if files are encrypted or by what

scheme they are encrypted. It just reads and writes sectors, so after

the restore from a physical image completes then the entire OS and all

files are exactly as they were before.

 

Because of the problem with restoring EFS files at the same time you are

trying to restore the OS along with the EFS certificate, I quit using

EFS. In addition, this eliminates me having to export the EFS

certificate to later import when a new instance of the OS gets installed

or a different instance is used on another computer. Instead I now use

TrueCrypt which simply creates a password-protected .tc file (which is

the volume in which files are saved and automatically encrypted). A

logical backup of a .tc file works without needing the OS to already

have an EFS certificate in place.

 

I've already discussed the shortcomings of True Image Home with Acronis

via their forums and tech e-mails and, in short, they require me to move

to their Workstation to have a decent backup and image solution.

[Guest Vanguard]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

"XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns997191E3C8DCxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...

> "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid> wrote:

>

>> Be aware that if you are thinking of the Home version of Acronis

>> True Image, it lacks several features which are considered

>> mandatory even for a single-workstation backup. It doesn't

>> support Volume Shadow Copy. Although the Volume Shadow Service

>> (VSS) may be enabled or automatic, TI Home won't use it. That

>> means during the backup that inuse files cannot be backed up

>> because they are locked. It also means that during the lengthy

>> backup time that the files can change so what gets saved are files

>> that are out of sync with each other.

>

> The above is incorrect, apparently you haven't used a current version

> of Acronis? There's been a bunch of improvements since version 7 to

> which the above may apply, I do know version 7 is much slower than the

> later versions....

 

I am using version 10. If Normal or High priority are selected for the

backup, the host becomes nearly impossible to use. At Low priority,

there is still severe impact to the responsiveness of the host. I have

ran NT Backup, Backup Exec Desktop, Comodo Desktop, and NetBackup all

all left the host must more responsive and the backups did not take any

longer to complete.

> BTW, the shadow copy issue should not be an issue, all images SHOULD

> be

> made by booting from the Acronis CD or from the Rescue CD. There are

> a

> bunch of advantages of doing so, particularly with an earlier version.

 

Aye, there's the rub: What should be done and what Acronis tells the

user to do. When using their program, they make it appear that images

can be saved while the operating system is still running. In fact, they

let the user schedule a task to save an image which obviously executes

while the OS is still running. A logical backup is still performed when

booting from their CD because they still read the files through the

operating system's file system. As they have themself noted, physical

images are only created if the file system is corrupted or not

recognizable. Even with other imaging products, like Ghost, the best or

safest way to make a physical image provided the product will let you

save physical images is to reboot and use the OS running from the

bootable CD so the partition with the OS is in complete stasis.

 

In most cases, a logical image is sufficient to restore the host to a

usable state, but not in all cases. Restoring to a usable state is not

the same as restoring the exact same state. In my other post, I've

noted the problem with EFS protected files. What is Acronis' solution?

Remove EFS before doing the backup or image. Yeah, like that's a

workable solution. Workarounds may exist but that doesn't mean anyone

is going to bother with them.

[Guest Zilbandy]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:44:33 -0500, "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid>

wrote:

>I've already discussed the shortcomings of True Image Home with Acronis

>via their forums and tech e-mails and, in short, they require me to move

>to their Workstation to have a decent backup and image solution.

 

Extremely interesting reply. Thank you. Apparently, for the way I use

my computer, Acronis TI Home appears to work for me, so I guess I'll

just stick with it, but it does give me some cause to consider another

solution in the future. The only encrypted stuff on my system is a PGP

Disk for my 'critical' data, and I guess it is similar to True Crypt

in that the file it creates doesn't need any extra handling other than

the correct passphrase.

 

--

Zilbandy

[Guest Uncle Grumpy]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:

>>>Terabyte software has been used and recommended for years by numerous

>>>MVPs, one of which was the late Alex Nichol.

>>

>> And by far the most times that it's been recommended here is because

>> it has a free trial period and folks are thus able to use it for a

>> one-time need for partitioning.

>>

>> I used it for maybe a year (registered it) and didn't like it. The

>> endless updates started to piss me off, among other reasons.

>

>Out of curiosity, what was it updating specifically all those millions of

>updates?

 

Ain't got a clue. I stopped using it several years ago and don't even

have it any more.

[Guest Plato]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

=?Utf-8?B?RGF2ZSBDYW5kaQ==?= wrote:

>

> I need to buy a good imaging program and also want one thats intuitive and

> used widely in the work place etc.. Would Norton or Acronis do the job and if

> so which is better more widely used by techy pips?

 

One might try:

 

http://www.xxclone.com/

 

--

http://www.bootdisk.com/

[Guest XS11E]

Re: NORTON or ACRONIS?

 

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:

> I think Acronis is broken for my own purposes, if the freebie at

> Seagate website is any indication provided by Acronis.

 

It's a very old and obsolete version but it did work for me, don't know

why it wouldn't for you?

 

 

 

--

XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups

The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html