Which Disk Imaging software to use?

[iceangel89]

i want to backup my windows vista partition, so which software best does the job? i guess since its a OS partition i need bootable functionality

and also looking at features like:

- compression

- speed

- reliability

and its good to have 1 thats easy to use

tried imagex but its a bit hard to use, ok not that hard but, i need to rmb commands. and btw, it will remove my vista activation such that after restoring a vista wim i need to reactivate? or did something get corrupt?

[MrCobra]

You might take a look at Acronis True Image.

[iceangel89]

ok thanks any other opinions?

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=100299

[iceangel89]

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=100299

oh i saw that b4 i posted this. but it does not tell me which is better?

[weEvil]

oh i saw that b4 i posted this. but it does not tell me which is better?

Better at what?

Each one fills a different need for disk imaging.

Edited December 8, 2008 by weEvil

[spacesurfer]

also the list doesn't tell you which is vista compatible.

remember that xp is friendlier than vista in terms of restoring your image. for example, ghost 2003 can capture an xp image and restore an xp image, but with vista, it will capture but errors when restoring vista.

it has to do with vista recognized the partition offset....

[weEvil]

also the list doesn't tell you which is vista compatible.

remember that xp is friendlier than vista in terms of restoring your image. for example, ghost 2003 can capture an xp image and restore an xp image, but with vista, it will capture but errors when restoring vista.

it has to do with vista recognized the partition offset....

That's why ghost was released in 2003 and Vista in 2006.

[spacesurfer]

That's why ghost was released in 2003 and Vista in 2006.

It doesn't matter. A sector-by-sector tool should restore the OS as it is. But what I'm saying is there's more to restoring Vista than a sector-by-sector approach.

[weEvil]

That's why ghost was released in 2003 and Vista in 2006.

It doesn't matter. A sector-by-sector tool should restore the OS as it is. But what I'm saying is there's more to restoring Vista than a sector-by-sector approach.

Sector by sector in DOS. 2003 doesn't seem to be compatible with Vista so its reading the current running filesystem (or currently accessed & protected files) wrong.

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

ghost is crap anyways. its arguably the best thing Norton has ever produced and its still not worth the cost to license it.

I personally use PING. it doesnt have a ton of features but the ones it has are all functional and reliable.

[spacesurfer]

not ghost 2003. ghost 2003 was not actually developed by norton - it was acquired from another company. all versions after ghost 2003 maybe crap.

only reason i've abandoned ghost 2003 is it's not compatible with vista. otherwise i would still use it.

[Martin H]

I have read that the latest build of Norton Ghost 2003(build 793), should work perfectly for Vista also, but i haven't tested it myself though...

I've used Acronis True Image for some years, but after having been feed up with going through those lame wizzards upon each restore job(only backups can be configured to start with one click, but not restores), then i have now gone over to Norton Ghost 2003, since with that, then i can just make a DOS bootable floppy with ghost.exe and then add some commands in autoexec.bat, so that i'm prompted for if i want to either backup or restore my system partition fully unattended and then reboot.

Maybe there are some freebies also with a command-line interface which is just as fast and reliable as ghost.exe in DOS, but i must admit that i've been to lazy to check it out...

Edited December 15, 2008 by Martin H