Hi,

I am going to buy a new image-based backup and restore software,
specifically, am thinking about Ghost 12 or Save and Restore 2.0 both from
Symantec.

Appreciate anyone can share if you have used either or both products for
backup and restore the entire XP system.

Thanks in advance.

http://www.xxclone.com/index.htm

....
"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u9kS2EOrHHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> I am going to buy a new image-based backup and restore software,
> specifically, am thinking about Ghost 12 or Save and Restore 2.0 both from
> Symantec.
>
> Appreciate anyone can share if you have used either or both products for
> backup and restore the entire XP system.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>

Have made images with Norton's Ghost in the past but never had to use a restore with
Norton's Ghost. I no longer use Nortons in anyway.
I have however had to restore my computer 3 times in the last six months and Acronis never
let me down - Backup and data recovery: http://www.acronis.com.sg/
So simple to use and easy to restore.

This is only my opinion and others may not share it.
--
====================================
TaurArian [MS-MVP] 2005-2007 - Australia
====================================
How to make a good post: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
Backup and data recovery: http://www.acronis.com.sg/
Enhancing file system performance: http://www.diskeeper.com/defrag.asp
Defending your machine: http://defendingyourmachine2.blogspot.com/


"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u9kS2EOrHHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| Hi,
|
| I am going to buy a new image-based backup and restore software,
| specifically, am thinking about Ghost 12 or Save and Restore 2.0 both from
| Symantec.
|
| Appreciate anyone can share if you have used either or both products for
| backup and restore the entire XP system.
|
| Thanks in advance.
|
|

xfile wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am going to buy a new image-based backup and restore software,
> specifically, am thinking about Ghost 12 or Save and Restore 2.0 both
> from Symantec.
>
> Appreciate anyone can share if you have used either or both products
> for backup and restore the entire XP system.
>
> Thanks in advance.

I have used Ghost at work for several years to create images and also for
backing up and restoring. It worked well for what I needed to do. But I have
recently started using Acronis at home and I like it very much. I am still
learning about it, but so far I like it better than Ghost.

Hi,

Thanks and I will check it out.


"TOAO" <theoneandonly@lalaland.com> wrote in message
news:uBE6HZOrHHA.4836@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> http://www.xxclone.com/index.htm
>
> ...
> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:u9kS2EOrHHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am going to buy a new image-based backup and restore software,
>> specifically, am thinking about Ghost 12 or Save and Restore 2.0 both
>> from Symantec.
>>
>> Appreciate anyone can share if you have used either or both products for
>> backup and restore the entire XP system.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>
>

Hi,

Many thanks and kindly see my reply to RA.


"TaurArian [MS-MVP]" <taurarianREMOVECAPS******.com> wrote in message
news:uQ3oegOrHHA.3492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Have made images with Norton's Ghost in the past but never had to use a
> restore with
> Norton's Ghost. I no longer use Nortons in anyway.
> I have however had to restore my computer 3 times in the last six months
> and Acronis never
> let me down - Backup and data recovery: http://www.acronis.com.sg/
> So simple to use and easy to restore.
>
> This is only my opinion and others may not share it.
> --
> ====================================
> TaurArian [MS-MVP] 2005-2007 - Australia
> ====================================
> How to make a good post: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> Backup and data recovery: http://www.acronis.com.sg/
> Enhancing file system performance: http://www.diskeeper.com/defrag.asp
> Defending your machine: http://defendingyourmachine2.blogspot.com/
>
>
> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:u9kS2EOrHHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> | Hi,
> |
> | I am going to buy a new image-based backup and restore software,
> | specifically, am thinking about Ghost 12 or Save and Restore 2.0 both
> from
> | Symantec.
> |
> | Appreciate anyone can share if you have used either or both products for
> | backup and restore the entire XP system.
> |
> | Thanks in advance.
> |
> |
>
>

Hi

Thanks for your kind reply.

I also have some limited experience on Ghost and it seems work for those few
cases. But my copy probably is too old, maybe 3-4 years.

Based on my recent study, Save and Restore 2.0 can select specific folders
and directories for the backup and restore, which otherwise, is almost the
same as Ghost.

I also read that Acronis seems to be a new comer (at least to me) that has
received many positive reviews and feedbacks, but I don't know if it'd be
more like Save and Restore that can select specific folders for backup and
restore or Ghost which must be the entire drive.

Thanks again for your and TaurArian's reply and I probably should study
Acronis as well.



"RA" <noonehere@thisplace.com> wrote in message
news:%23WFdTvOrHHA.4804@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> xfile wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am going to buy a new image-based backup and restore software,
>> specifically, am thinking about Ghost 12 or Save and Restore 2.0 both
>> from Symantec.
>>
>> Appreciate anyone can share if you have used either or both products
>> for backup and restore the entire XP system.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>
> I have used Ghost at work for several years to create images and also for
> backing up and restoring. It worked well for what I needed to do. But I
> have recently started using Acronis at home and I like it very much. I am
> still learning about it, but so far I like it better than Ghost.
>

"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u9kS2EOrHHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> I am going to buy a new image-based backup and restore software,
> specifically, am thinking about Ghost 12 or Save and Restore 2.0 both from
> Symantec.
>
> Appreciate anyone can share if you have used either or both products for
> backup and restore the entire XP system.
>
> Thanks in advance.


xfile:
Let me say at the outset that we haven't worked with either Symantec's Ghost
12 program nor the Save and Restore 2.0 program so it's possible one of
those programs may be suitable for your needs.

We have worked with the Ghost 2003 program for many years in an XP
environment and found that program to be quite effective as a disk cloning
(not a disk imaging) program especially when working with a Ghost 2003
bootable floppy disk or bootable CD. We were never thrilled with the Ghost
2003 GUI.

Similarly, we were (as many users were) disappointed with Symantec's Ghost 9
& 10 versions for a number of reasons and soon discontinued using those
programs. In the past couple of years we've been using the Acronis True
Image program both for disk cloning & disk imaging and by & large we've
found it to be an effective backup program. I believe you've received a
number of responses to your query recommending that program. You most
certainly should give that program a try, especially since Acronis has a
15-day trial version available. (At least I think they still do).

However, the *real* reason for this post is to suggest that you (and others
who are also considering a comprehensive backup program) might like to look
at another program - the Casper 4.0 program. So I'm going to provide you
with some details about that program based on our experience with it over
the past few months.

We've been working with the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program for about five
months now and by & large we've been quite impressed with this program.
First of all, potential users should note that this is a *disk cloning*
program - not a disk imaging program - in the sense that the program is
designed to create (for all practical purposes) a bit-for-bit copy of the
HDD so that if the recipient of the clone is an internal HDD, that cloned
HDD will be bootable and its data immediately accessible, unlike the
situation where a disk image is created on the recipient HDD and a recovery
process is necessary to restore the image to a bootable, data-accessible
state. Note, however, that should the recipient of the clone be a USB
external HDD - since that device is not ordinarily bootable - its contents
(although accessible from the boot HDD) would need to be "cloned back" to an
internal HDD should the recovery/restore process be necessary to create a
bootable HDD.

The Casper 4.0 program also has the happy capability of cloning individual
partitions on one HDD to another HDD, not merely creating a "disk image" of
the partition(s).

In general, the chief advantage of a disk-imaging approach rather than a
disk-cloning one has always been that following the initial creation of a
disk image, subsequent incremental disk images can be created and this
allows for a significant (and desirable) increase in backup speed as
compared with the time it takes for a user to create a disk clone every time
the user backs up his or her system.

There's also a relatively minor (in our view) advantage of creating disk
images rather than disk clones in that the resultant disk image file can be
compressed in size, thus saving some disk space. However, this advantage
generally disappears (or at least is substantially reduced) after a number
of incremental backup disk image files are created following the initial
(original) backup file ("archive"). And given today's relatively inexpensive
large-capacity hard drives we do not feel this advantage is of major import
for most users. Additionally, disk imaging obviously lends itself better to
using DVDs as the backup media, however given the rather large amount of
data usually being backed up by most users in today's systems most users
prefer to use hard drives (internal or external) as the recipient of the
disk image backup when employing that approach rather than disk cloning. In
any event if one's primary or exclusive interest is in disk imaging rather
than disk cloning then one need not consider the Casper 4.0 program.

The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program over other
disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis True Image or
Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create *incremental* disk clones
following the creation of the original (first) disk clone. Employing what
Casper calls its "SmartClone" technology the program can create subsequent
disk clones of the source HDD usually at a fraction of the time it takes to
create a "full" disk clone. This results in a decided incentive for users to
undertake frequent complete backups of their systems knowing that they can
create "incremental" disk clones in a relatively short period of time.

The Casper 4.0 program's capability in creating these *incremental* disk
clones results in a significant savings of time as compared to the usual
time it takes to create a cloned disk using other disk-cloning programs.
Knowing that this incremental disk cloning process will take only a
relatively short period of time provides the user with increased motivation
to back up their systems on a much more frequent & systematic basis than
they might otherwise do - a most desirable result as I think most PC users
would all agree.

Another positive feature we've discovered with the Casper 4.0 program - at
least based upon our experience to date is that unlike other disk cloning
programs such as the Acronis & Ghost programs, when the recipient of the
clone - the destination HDD - is an *internal* HDD, the user need not
disconnect the source HDD from the system and make an *initial* boot
following the disk cloning operation with only the destination HDD
connected. Again, we're referring here to a disk cloning operation where the
recipient of the clone (the "destination" drive) has been an *internal* HDD.

As many of us know, there has been a problem with disk cloning programs in
general with this situation in that if immediately following the disk
cloning operation both the (internal) source & destination HDDs are
connected and an *initial* boot is made to the source drive, there can be a
subsequent problem with the destination drive in that it will fail to boot
if at a later time it is the only HDD connected in the system. Because of
this anomaly our advice - as well as from others including the developers of
these disk cloning programs - has heretofore always been to disconnect the
source HDD from the system *immediately* following the disk cloning
operation and make that initial boot with *only* the destination (internal)
HDD present. (And, of course, to determine that the clone has "took" - the
cloned HDD is bootable & functional).

While this problem does not always happen along the lines described above,
it does occur with sufficient frequency that we feel this cautionary note is
required. Note that where the recipient of the cloned contents of the source
HDD is an *external* HDD, such as a USB external HDD, this potential problem
does not exist since the USB external HDD is not ordinarily a bootable
device. Again - based on our experience with the Casper 4.0 program to date
using a fairly wide variety of systems together with both PATA & SATA HDDs
in a variety of combinations, e.g., SATA-to-SATA, PATA-to-PATA,
SATA-to-PATA, etc., we haven't experienced a single problem (as described
above) in this area.

Using the Casper program is simplicity itself. There's virtually no learning
curve in undertaking the disk cloning process as one navigates through the
few easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button which
will trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two
disk-cloning operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or
so to get to that point.

Here's a more-or-less typical example of using the program to clone the
contents of one HDD to another HDD (internal or external)...
1. Access the Casper 4.0 program.
2. Click on the opening screen's "Copy Drive" icon.
3. Click on the Next button on the "Welcome..." window.
4. Select the "Copy an entire hard disk" option, then the Next button.
5. The next window will reflect the HDD to be copied, presumably your boot
drive. Click Next.
6. The next window will list the "destination" HDD, i.e., the drive that
will be the recipient of the cloned contents of the drive you're copying.
Highlight that drive listing and Click Next.
7. A warning screen will appear indicating the destination HDD is "currently
in use" and that "all data on that disk may be lost if you continue". It's
just a cautionary note so click Next.
8. Since you're cloning the entire contents of your source HDD to the
destination HDD, just click Next on the next screen to accomplish that.
9. Select the "Perform the copy now" option and click Next and then Next
again on the following screen.

The disk-cloning operation will proceed with a final screen indicating its
successful conclusion.

BTW, the program is also capable of scheduling the disk-cloning process on a
daily, weekly, or other time period selected by the user.

The program is not particularly inexpensive as disk cloning programs go.
Cost for a single-license is $49.95. AFAIK, the program is available for
download only from the developer at http://www.fssdev.com and this does not
include the "Casper Startup Disk" which sells for an additional $9.95. That
"Startup Disk" is a really essential piece of the program since in many
cases it would be the only way to effect a recovery of the system when the
installed Casper program could not be accessed from the Windows environment
because the program resides on a HDD that has failed or has become
unbootable. The usual scenario for using the Startup Disk is when the
recipient of the clone has been an external HDD - most likely a USB external
HDD - and the original source disk has become defective or dysfunctional
(unbootable) so that there is no opportunity to access the installed Casper
program. Since the USB external HDD containing the cloned contents of the
source drive is not bootable, one must use the Startup Disk in that
situation in order to clone the contents of the external HDD back to a
non-defective internal HDD in order to recover the system.

The developer does have a 30-day trial version available - see
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/trial/. The trial version is somewhat
crippled but should give one some reasonable insight as to how the program
works. However note that the trial version does not include the program to
create the "Startup Disk" described above.

This Casper 4.0 program is advertised as being compatible with Vista,
however, except for some cursory experience we've had using Casper with that
operating system, we feel we haven't had sufficient experience with that OS
to form any absolute judgment as to its effectiveness (or lack of) in that
environment. I will say the relatively few times we've used Casper in the
Vista OS with a number of different systems it has performed flawlessly.
Anna

Your welcome but if I was to choose a pay version ? I would go with True
Image


"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e6fFnPPrHHA.3248@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> Thanks and I will check it out.
>
>
> "TOAO" <theoneandonly@lalaland.com> wrote in message
> news:uBE6HZOrHHA.4836@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> http://www.xxclone.com/index.htm
>>
>> ...
>> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:u9kS2EOrHHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am going to buy a new image-based backup and restore software,
>>> specifically, am thinking about Ghost 12 or Save and Restore 2.0 both
>>> from Symantec.
>>>
>>> Appreciate anyone can share if you have used either or both products for
>>> backup and restore the entire XP system.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"xfile" wrote
> Hi,
>
> I am going to buy a new image-based backup and restore software,
> specifically, am thinking about Ghost 12 or Save and Restore 2.0 both from
> Symantec.
>
> Appreciate anyone can share if you have used either or both products for
> backup and restore the entire XP system.

I use and like Acronis True Image version 10. It can image on a partition
or drive basis; in addition to a full image subsequent images can be
incremental or differential. Restores can be done on a file, folder,
partition, or drive basis. It also does file backup and drive cloning.
Look for the best prices at a discount retailer rather than direct from
Acronis.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

Hi Anna,

Appreciate your comprehensive and detailed explanations about the Ghost and
Casper 4.0:

> We were never thrilled with the Ghost 2003 GUI.

Me neither, and I forgot which version do we have but as far as I can
remember, GUI is terribly designed.

> Similarly, we were (as many users were) disappointed with Symantec's Ghost
> 9 & 10 versions for a number of reasons and soon discontinued using those
> programs.

That's what I also learned from the recent study and it is one of the major
reasons for me not to jump in and buy Ghost 12.

> In general, the chief advantage of a disk-imaging approach rather than a
> disk-cloning one has always been that following the initial creation of a
> disk image, subsequent incremental disk images can be created and this
> allows for a significant (and desirable) increase in backup speed as
> compared with the time it takes for a user to create a disk clone every
> time the user backs up his or her system.
>
> There's also a relatively minor (in our view) advantage of creating disk
> images rather than disk clones in that the resultant disk image file can
> be compressed in size, thus saving some disk space. However, this
> advantage generally disappears (or at least is substantially reduced)
> after a number of incremental backup disk image files are created
> following the initial (original) backup file ("archive"). And given
> today's relatively inexpensive large-capacity hard drives we do not feel
> this advantage is of major import for most users. Additionally, disk
> imaging obviously lends itself better to using DVDs as the backup media,
> however given the rather large amount of data usually being backed up by
> most users in today's systems most users prefer to use hard drives
> (internal or external) as the recipient of the disk image backup when
> employing that approach rather than disk cloning. In any event if one's
> primary or exclusive interest is in disk imaging rather than disk cloning
> then one need not consider the Casper 4.0 program.

We are a small company, and in the past, what we have been doing is very
simple - We (I) routinely backup data file to an external HDD and/or file
server with other utilities and then move to DVD discs on an annual basis,
but rely on System Restore, Factory Restore, and/or complete reinstall for
the rare cases of disasters. We don't do any incremental disk imaging
backup.

But our business is growing and we have more people and systems to join so
what I am thinking about are: (1) to use image for faster installation of
applications and settings for the new systems, and (2) to have a backup
image for each system after initial setup so that it can be restored faster
in the unfortunate case of disasters.

I still don't know if we are going to do incremental disk imaging backup,
and most likely, will not and probably will continue to do what we have been
doing for the data files, backup to an external HDD and/or file server. One
of reasons for using this mechanism is also for file sharing purpose.

And you are right, the last thing that I'd worry about is the drive
capacity.

> The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program over
> other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis True
> Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create *incremental*
> disk clones following the creation of the original (first) disk clone.
> Employing what Casper calls its "SmartClone" technology the program can
> create subsequent disk clones of the source HDD usually at a fraction of
> the time it takes to create a "full" disk clone. This results in a decided
> incentive for users to undertake frequent complete backups of their
> systems knowing that they can create "incremental" disk clones in a
> relatively short period of time.

This is very interesting although, as mentioned, we rarely do complete
system backup and I sure will study more to see if and how it will fit into
our scenarios.

> As many of us know, there has been a problem with disk cloning programs in
> general with this situation in that if immediately following the disk
> cloning operation both the (internal) source & destination HDDs are
> connected and an *initial* boot is made to the source drive, there can be
> a subsequent problem with the destination drive in that it will fail to
> boot if at a later time it is the only HDD connected in the system.
> Because of this anomaly our advice - as well as from others including the
> developers of these disk cloning programs - has heretofore always been to
> disconnect the source HDD from the system *immediately* following the disk
> cloning operation and make that initial boot with *only* the destination
> (internal) HDD present. (And, of course, to determine that the clone has
> "took" - the cloned HDD is bootable & functional).
>

I don't know that as I only have very limited experience on system recovery
or restore (thank God for that) but appreciate you for sharing it and I will
remember it.

> The program is not particularly inexpensive as disk cloning programs go.
> Cost for a single-license is $49.95. AFAIK, the program is available for
> download only from the developer at http://www.fssdev.com and this does
> not include the "Casper Startup Disk" which sells for an additional $9.95.
> That "Startup Disk" is a really essential piece of the program since in
> many cases it would be the only way to effect a recovery of the system
> when the installed Casper program could not be accessed from the Windows
> environment because the program resides on a HDD that has failed or has
> become unbootable. The usual scenario for using the Startup Disk is when
> the recipient of the clone has been an external HDD - most likely a USB
> external HDD - and the original source disk has become defective or
> dysfunctional (unbootable) so that there is no opportunity to access the
> installed Casper program. Since the USB external HDD containing the cloned
> contents of the source drive is not bootable, one must use the Startup
> Disk in that situation in order to clone the contents of the external HDD
> back to a non-defective internal HDD in order to recover the system.

So the cost of the entire program including Startup Disk (which otherwise
might not be useful in the case of recovery) is around $60 and surly is not
inexpensive :) But if it could do the job right, the cost is pretty much
nothing compare with idle labor costs if systems were going down. But they
might just want to put it into the total cost to avoid unpleasant surprises.
I could easily miss that one during visiting their site if you had not
informed me. Thanks again.

> This Casper 4.0 program is advertised as being compatible with Vista,

That's good to know as well even we are not planning to use the OS in any
feasible future but any new applications and hardware that we are going to
buy will be at least "compatible" with Vista, just in case.

Once again, appreciate your informtive and comprehensive explainations and I
sure will go their site for further study and try their products as well.

Take care!



"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:e9YgedPrHHA.4300@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:u9kS2EOrHHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am going to buy a new image-based backup and restore software,
>> specifically, am thinking about Ghost 12 or Save and Restore 2.0 both
>> from Symantec.
>>
>> Appreciate anyone can share if you have used either or both products for
>> backup and restore the entire XP system.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>
>
> xfile:
> Let me say at the outset that we haven't worked with either Symantec's
> Ghost 12 program nor the Save and Restore 2.0 program so it's possible one
> of those programs may be suitable for your needs.
>
> We have worked with the Ghost 2003 program for many years in an XP
> environment and found that program to be quite effective as a disk
> cloning (not a disk imaging) program especially when working with a Ghost
> 2003 bootable floppy disk or bootable CD. We were never thrilled with the
> Ghost 2003 GUI.
>
> Similarly, we were (as many users were) disappointed with Symantec's Ghost
> 9 & 10 versions for a number of reasons and soon discontinued using those
> programs. In the past couple of years we've been using the Acronis True
> Image program both for disk cloning & disk imaging and by & large we've
> found it to be an effective backup program. I believe you've received a
> number of responses to your query recommending that program. You most
> certainly should give that program a try, especially since Acronis has a
> 15-day trial version available. (At least I think they still do).
>
> However, the *real* reason for this post is to suggest that you (and
> others who are also considering a comprehensive backup program) might like
> to look at another program - the Casper 4.0 program. So I'm going to
> provide you with some details about that program based on our experience
> with it over the past few months.
>
> We've been working with the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program for about five
> months now and by & large we've been quite impressed with this program.
> First of all, potential users should note that this is a *disk cloning*
> program - not a disk imaging program - in the sense that the program is
> designed to create (for all practical purposes) a bit-for-bit copy of the
> HDD so that if the recipient of the clone is an internal HDD, that cloned
> HDD will be bootable and its data immediately accessible, unlike the
> situation where a disk image is created on the recipient HDD and a
> recovery process is necessary to restore the image to a bootable,
> data-accessible state. Note, however, that should the recipient of the
> clone be a USB external HDD - since that device is not ordinarily
> bootable - its contents (although accessible from the boot HDD) would need
> to be "cloned back" to an internal HDD should the recovery/restore process
> be necessary to create a bootable HDD.
>
> The Casper 4.0 program also has the happy capability of cloning individual
> partitions on one HDD to another HDD, not merely creating a "disk image"
> of the partition(s).
>
> In general, the chief advantage of a disk-imaging approach rather than a
> disk-cloning one has always been that following the initial creation of a
> disk image, subsequent incremental disk images can be created and this
> allows for a significant (and desirable) increase in backup speed as
> compared with the time it takes for a user to create a disk clone every
> time the user backs up his or her system.
>
> There's also a relatively minor (in our view) advantage of creating disk
> images rather than disk clones in that the resultant disk image file can
> be compressed in size, thus saving some disk space. However, this
> advantage generally disappears (or at least is substantially reduced)
> after a number of incremental backup disk image files are created
> following the initial (original) backup file ("archive"). And given
> today's relatively inexpensive large-capacity hard drives we do not feel
> this advantage is of major import for most users. Additionally, disk
> imaging obviously lends itself better to using DVDs as the backup media,
> however given the rather large amount of data usually being backed up by
> most users in today's systems most users prefer to use hard drives
> (internal or external) as the recipient of the disk image backup when
> employing that approach rather than disk cloning. In any event if one's
> primary or exclusive interest is in disk imaging rather than disk cloning
> then one need not consider the Casper 4.0 program.
>
> The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program over
> other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis True
> Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create *incremental*
> disk clones following the creation of the original (first) disk clone.
> Employing what Casper calls its "SmartClone" technology the program can
> create subsequent disk clones of the source HDD usually at a fraction of
> the time it takes to create a "full" disk clone. This results in a decided
> incentive for users to undertake frequent complete backups of their
> systems knowing that they can create "incremental" disk clones in a
> relatively short period of time.
>
> The Casper 4.0 program's capability in creating these *incremental* disk
> clones results in a significant savings of time as compared to the usual
> time it takes to create a cloned disk using other disk-cloning programs.
> Knowing that this incremental disk cloning process will take only a
> relatively short period of time provides the user with increased
> motivation to back up their systems on a much more frequent & systematic
> basis than they might otherwise do - a most desirable result as I think
> most PC users would all agree.
>
> Another positive feature we've discovered with the Casper 4.0 program - at
> least based upon our experience to date is that unlike other disk cloning
> programs such as the Acronis & Ghost programs, when the recipient of the
> clone - the destination HDD - is an *internal* HDD, the user need not
> disconnect the source HDD from the system and make an *initial* boot
> following the disk cloning operation with only the destination HDD
> connected. Again, we're referring here to a disk cloning operation where
> the recipient of the clone (the "destination" drive) has been an
> *internal* HDD.
>
> As many of us know, there has been a problem with disk cloning programs in
> general with this situation in that if immediately following the disk
> cloning operation both the (internal) source & destination HDDs are
> connected and an *initial* boot is made to the source drive, there can be
> a subsequent problem with the destination drive in that it will fail to
> boot if at a later time it is the only HDD connected in the system.
> Because of this anomaly our advice - as well as from others including the
> developers of these disk cloning programs - has heretofore always been to
> disconnect the source HDD from the system *immediately* following the disk
> cloning operation and make that initial boot with *only* the destination
> (internal) HDD present. (And, of course, to determine that the clone has
> "took" - the cloned HDD is bootable & functional).
>
> While this problem does not always happen along the lines described above,
> it does occur with sufficient frequency that we feel this cautionary note
> is required. Note that where the recipient of the cloned contents of the
> source HDD is an *external* HDD, such as a USB external HDD, this
> potential problem does not exist since the USB external HDD is not
> ordinarily a bootable device. Again - based on our experience with the
> Casper 4.0 program to date using a fairly wide variety of systems together
> with both PATA & SATA HDDs in a variety of combinations, e.g.,
> SATA-to-SATA, PATA-to-PATA, SATA-to-PATA, etc., we haven't experienced a
> single problem (as described above) in this area.
>
> Using the Casper program is simplicity itself. There's virtually no
> learning curve in undertaking the disk cloning process as one navigates
> through the few easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the
> button which will trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one
> or two disk-cloning operations it should take the user no more than 20
> seconds or so to get to that point.
>
> Here's a more-or-less typical example of using the program to clone the
> contents of one HDD to another HDD (internal or external)...
> 1. Access the Casper 4.0 program.
> 2. Click on the opening screen's "Copy Drive" icon.
> 3. Click on the Next button on the "Welcome..." window.
> 4. Select the "Copy an entire hard disk" option, then the Next button.
> 5. The next window will reflect the HDD to be copied, presumably your boot
> drive. Click Next.
> 6. The next window will list the "destination" HDD, i.e., the drive that
> will be the recipient of the cloned contents of the drive you're copying.
> Highlight that drive listing and Click Next.
> 7. A warning screen will appear indicating the destination HDD is
> "currently in use" and that "all data on that disk may be lost if you
> continue". It's just a cautionary note so click Next.
> 8. Since you're cloning the entire contents of your source HDD to the
> destination HDD, just click Next on the next screen to accomplish that.
> 9. Select the "Perform the copy now" option and click Next and then Next
> again on the following screen.
>
> The disk-cloning operation will proceed with a final screen indicating its
> successful conclusion.
>
> BTW, the program is also capable of scheduling the disk-cloning process on
> a daily, weekly, or other time period selected by the user.
>
> The program is not particularly inexpensive as disk cloning programs go.
> Cost for a single-license is $49.95. AFAIK, the program is available for
> download only from the developer at http://www.fssdev.com and this does
> not include the "Casper Startup Disk" which sells for an additional $9.95.
> That "Startup Disk" is a really essential piece of the program since in
> many cases it would be the only way to effect a recovery of the system
> when the installed Casper program could not be accessed from the Windows
> environment because the program resides on a HDD that has failed or has
> become unbootable. The usual scenario for using the Startup Disk is when
> the recipient of the clone has been an external HDD - most likely a USB
> external HDD - and the original source disk has become defective or
> dysfunctional (unbootable) so that there is no opportunity to access the
> installed Casper program. Since the USB external HDD containing the cloned
> contents of the source drive is not bootable, one must use the Startup
> Disk in that situation in order to clone the contents of the external HDD
> back to a non-defective internal HDD in order to recover the system.
>
> The developer does have a 30-day trial version available - see
> http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/trial/. The trial version is
> somewhat
> crippled but should give one some reasonable insight as to how the program
> works. However note that the trial version does not include the program to
> create the "Startup Disk" described above.
>
> This Casper 4.0 program is advertised as being compatible with Vista,
> however, except for some cursory experience we've had using Casper with
> that operating system, we feel we haven't had sufficient experience with
> that OS to form any absolute judgment as to its effectiveness (or lack of)
> in that environment. I will say the relatively few times we've used Casper
> in the Vista OS with a number of different systems it has performed
> flawlessly.
> Anna
>
>
>

Hi,

Thanks for your kind tips and I will definitely try it since you and many
other advanced users have recommended it, also..

"Restores can be done on a file, folder, partition, or drive basis. " seems
to be very attractive.

Thanks again for your kind suggestions as always.


"Rock" <Rock@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%23nisACVrHHA.5028@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "xfile" wrote
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am going to buy a new image-based backup and restore software,
>> specifically, am thinking about Ghost 12 or Save and Restore 2.0 both
>> from Symantec.
>>
>> Appreciate anyone can share if you have used either or both products for
>> backup and restore the entire XP system.
>
> I use and like Acronis True Image version 10. It can image on a partition
> or drive basis; in addition to a full image subsequent images can be
> incremental or differential. Restores can be done on a file, folder,
> partition, or drive basis. It also does file backup and drive cloning.
> Look for the best prices at a discount retailer rather than direct from
> Acronis.
>
> --
> Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

Yes, it will be a pay version if trial version proves it can do the work :)

Thanks again :)


"TOAO" <theoneandonly@lalaland.com> wrote in message
news:eXDg$UQrHHA.4932@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Your welcome but if I was to choose a pay version ? I would go with True
> Image
>
>
> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:e6fFnPPrHHA.3248@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks and I will check it out.
>>
>>
>> "TOAO" <theoneandonly@lalaland.com> wrote in message
>> news:uBE6HZOrHHA.4836@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> http://www.xxclone.com/index.htm
>>>
>>> ...
>>> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:u9kS2EOrHHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am going to buy a new image-based backup and restore software,
>>>> specifically, am thinking about Ghost 12 or Save and Restore 2.0 both
>>>> from Symantec.
>>>>
>>>> Appreciate anyone can share if you have used either or both products
>>>> for backup and restore the entire XP system.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your kind tips and I will definitely try it since you and many
> other advanced users have recommended it, also..
>
> "Restores can be done on a file, folder, partition, or drive basis. "
> seems to be very attractive.
>
> Thanks again for your kind suggestions as always.

You're welcome.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]