Imaging Software

[Googler24022]

Hi,

I have recently been looking at the topic about how often you re-install Windows Xp. I have seen a fair few people really like this imaging software, but myself have never touched it before and have no idea how to use it even. So my question is

What's a fairly cheap Imaging software to buy?

Which one ranks high?

How do you use them and how quickly can you restore Windows?

Regards,

Matt.

[Sonic]

There are

- Acronis TrueImage

- Norton Ghost

for shareware. They aren't expensive for the task achieved. (not the professionnal version )

There are freeware tools on linux world too ...

Restoring an image is about 5-10min depends on the system restored ... (just windows or windows and all apps)

[taj]

Hi Googler24022,

I would recommend Acronis True Image.

Acronis True Image can be used to create a hard disk image when the system is set up how you want it, and then you can restore from that image whenever things go wrong, from a bootable disc if necessary (True Image lets you make a bootable rescue media once installed).

Acronis True Image Home (download version) $49.99

Click here for more info on Acronis True Image...

- Taj

Edited July 24, 2006 by taj

[LLXX]

Go with Ghost.

[Googler24022]

Atleast try to convince me why I should use Ghost.

I'm going to out Acronis True Image

Thanks for the recommendations.

[Xpaninity]

Atleast try to convince me why I should use Ghost.

I'm going to out Acronis True Image

Thanks for the recommendations.

Good luck, True Image is good.

But when I tried Ghost 2003 (Ghost 10 is the newest for home and small business) I found out that Ghost is special, it´s like heaven or something.

Update: today I restored an image of 50GB in an hour with Acronis True Image. Reimaged about 70GB in about an hour and a half.

Before I image I delete all junk files, check the disk for errors and defragment. I prefer to use bootable media while imaging.

Update2: and of course I use disk wipe tool before I restore an image.

Edited August 2, 2006 by Xpaninity

[DanRSturbo]

Although I've never personally use it, Ghost was highly eccommended by some of my m8's who frequently used to reinstall windows. I have nothing on my main hard drive other then windows and app's that are installed. In the event of needing a format and reinstall, the most i'll ever lose will be e-mails. I keep everything I need on the 2nd of 5 hard drives in my machine.

[jrf2027]

I've been using Image for Windows from Terabyte Unlimited (http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/) for about two months now. It's pretty basic, but it does everything I've asked it to do - it will burn your image to a CD/DVD or create it on a second physical disk in your computer. I haven't tested it out yet, but it also allows you to backup your image to a USB or FireWire drive. Takes a little longer to restore an image - about 15-20 minutes from a DVD, 10-15 minutes from hard drive. It does not allow incremental backups; however, full backups only take about five minutes if backing up to a hard drive and take about 15 minutes when burning to a 4x DVD+RW.

The installation footprint is VERY small - less than 2 MB after you remove the 500K user guide - and the program is very easy to use. You can download the trialware version from the website above, and if you like it, the cost is only $27 to purchase - about $20 less than Ghost or True Image.

[pugwash2004]

I would avoid Ghost, I had a nightmare of a day transfering a laptop from an 8gb to 20gb drive. It didn't copy the virtual memory file correctly it cheats by creating an empty file the same size to make the compression better, a day of someone asking 'is it ready?' and 'we should buy a new hard drive' was enough for me.

I got it working simply because I found someones website that had gone through the same process, after transfering the image to the new drive you have to edit the boot sector to make it re-initialise the virtual memory file, all from a dos6 boot disk. They may have changed it in newer versions but probably not, Symantec seem to like doing cosmetic changes to justify an upgrade with the odd new feature every couple of years. It may just be I missed a setting but I've avoided it ever since and used Acronis True Image.

[spacesurfer]

@pugwash

You didn't specify which ghost version you were using. But here's a tidbit about Ghost 2003 and true image.

The virtual memory file is not copied by True Image either. Both Ghost 2003 and True Image omit the pagefile.sys, hibernate.sys so your image is smaller. And that's a good thing. There's no reason to have these, since upon boot, a new file is created on the fly.

Your problem is related to something else probably. Ghost 2003 is excellent. Ghost 9 and 10 are different from Ghost 2003. Ghost 9 and 10 are based on PowerQuest's DriveImage software that allowed hot-imaging.

I don't particularly like 9 and 10. I like 2003 because it runs from DOS and fits on a floppy. I can easily modify how DOS load from floppy, e.g. add firewire drivers, CD-rom drivers or delete them on the fly in DOS.

I think all problems can be avoided with familiarity on how to use the program.

Googler-- Just ask Andromeda. He's probably got tons of posts on Ghost 2003. Go to the poll again and find his posts. He gives you explanation why Ghost 2003 is better AND CHEAPER (at < $7.00).

[awilliamson]

Ghost is my personal choice, but it really depends on what you want to do. I have a PXE Boot server setup so that I can Ghostcast across my network. This is fast, and fairly easy to setup. I've had some difficulty with Acronis, but I haven't spent much time with it to get it figured. Ghost was just easier to learn. I use version 8, with 3com boot services from version 7.5.

[tarquel]

Both Ghost and Acronis software are very good.

Alot of the time, people will pick one based on price, personal preference, and recomendations.

If you can trial them, then do so... look at the features, and decide what suits you better.

Good luck

Nath.

[Jeremy]

I think it just comes down to preference. I think the only advantage Acronis has over Norton that I know of is that Acronis can store the image file on a different partition made on the same HD, and Norton can't, so I've been told.

[awergh]

i like ghost 2003 for cloning etc and i like ghost 8 for ghost casts because that is much easier than spaning multiple disks.

but in the end this is just my oppinion, its your choice what you use

Edited July 26, 2006 by awergh

[taj]

I think it just comes down to preference. I think the only advantage Acronis has over Norton that I know of is that Acronis can store the image file on a different partition made on the same HD, and Norton can't, so I've been told.

I prefer Acronis True Image to Norton Ghost, but I'm pretty sure that Ghost can store the image file on a different partition on the same hard drive. Unless something has changed recently... I'm sure someone who uses Ghost frequently can confirm if this is the case (Andromeda, where are you? )...

- Taj