Surface Pro (2017) vs Surface Pro 4
I am considering buying Norton Ghost 2003 or Powerquest Drive Image 7 for regularly backing up on Windows XP home (40Gb hard drive, 6.99Gb used).
I would be interested to know the merits of both products from users, particularly in regard to incremental backups and use of CD-RW.
There are allegedly free tools which will do the same thing...for free!
Run a search on previous threads for links.
Thanks Ben - but for regular use I am more interested in convenience over price; although I would prefer to use CD-RWs if possible!
Have used Drive Image 2002 and that works fine, HDD and CDR/CDRW.
Be wary about CDRW disc's though as they aren't the most reliable of sources.
I was hoping for more positive feedback - I believe Fred Langa's comments on Drive Image 7 are largely moot!
So he doesn't like it as much as earlier versions and its desgned for XP? I haven't used earlier versions of Drive Image and I use XP exclusively, so no problem there.
Thanks for your comments jazzypop.
Are there any satisfied users of Norton Ghost 2003 or Powerquest Drive Image 7 prepared to comment?
What in the world?
Who cares if freddy does not like DI7.
It has to be the the most easiet program to use for backing up.
You are given videos for tutorial and there is a basic (beginers) and an advanced (you know what your doing) type of views. It's very simple and very easy to understand.
As long as you know what you want to image and where you want to store the image your ok.
The use of CD-RW is where you will see trouble. Backup to CD-R and not RW. What about another hard drive/partition?
So you are a satisfied user of Drive Image 7?
Is it simple to schedule regular backups?
How about incremental backups?
And is it simle to locate and restore individual files to restore?
I don't have an additional hard drive nor wish to incur the expense of one - if I get another PC or laptop then I may use that option in future.
I am not keen on partitioning - if a reformat of my hard drive becomes necessary I lose my backup?
How about using CD-RW to create multiple backups - is this not a 'safe' option?
With respect to anyone who wants to disagree, I've used Ghost in a corporate network environment for years and it's a gem. It enables simple roll-out of new software and all I have to do is set up a new machine the way I want it, Ghost it, then multi-cast the image over a network of same spec machines.
I also use Ghost and Drive Image at home and I don't think that there is anything between them overall other than personal preference. The image files created by Ghost are slightly smaller than Drive Image (better compression) but the flipside of this is that I've sometimes had heavily compressed backups fail to selectively restore individual files, while a complete restore WAS successful. This means that there is, or was, an issue with the software for selective restores while the image was created without problems and remained usable.
To echo the above sentiments on CDRW, stay away from them unless you want to waste the time taking two backups of everything, just to be sure. The CDR/CDRW reliability facts and figures are there for all to see, and while CDRW will do what you want most of the time, they invariably choose to fail when you are trying to restore that all important backup you took last month and...
Keep in mind that the products you mentioned are great for complete drive/partition backups and quick restoration of same, but for general file backups there are other alternatives that I prefer.
My favourite is Datakeeper and, while this has sadly been discontinued as a product (but is still available as OEM) it, and similar offerings from other vendors, is an excellent method of tracking the changes to documents as you work on them.
You can choose the backup location (removable drive, partition and so on) the type of file backup you want and the option is there for you to roll back your data files to any one of several snapshots taken as you work on them. There is a slight hit to your machines overall performance as you might expect, but in normal use you will never even notice it and for intensive applications you can simply turn off the monitoring process to devote all resources to the task(s) at hand.
To get back to Ghost and Drive Image though, I have a soft spot for Ghost and probably always will have, but I do think that Drive image is slightly easier to use overall, if only fractionally.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.