Ghost 9 $4.99

[kamranziadar]

Amazon has Norton Ghost 9 Disk Imaging software for $4.99 after rebate for upgraders/crossgraders, free shipping.


$60 rebate Exp 12/25/04



Text

 

[Jenova314]

price is $65 - $40MIR = $25 for non-upgraders

 

[NightCrawler]

Acronis True Image 8.0 is tha bomb.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Acronis True Image 8.0 is tha bomb.

Bomb and software... shudder ... not good.

WHich is why I prefer Image4DOS. A very good program.

 

[LED]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Acronis True Image 8.0 is tha bomb.

Best Deal I've seen on Acronis....e-mail me for it

The Ghost deal is hot for uograders as long as the rebates come through but keep in mind that the newer Ghost software can limit the Machines used...

 

[dtanderson]

True Image is much better than Ghost.

 

[Wyck]

G4U is pretty slick (and free) if you don't like/need a bunch of fluff. Backs up locally or to FTP.

 

[Elixer]

Hold on, last I checked, True Image doesn't do true image verifications. Ghost does.
What I mean by true image verifications, I mean it compares what is written on the device against the original.
True Image verifies that the file is correct, but does NOT compare against the original source. It does some kind of CRC check, nothing more. At least this was the case when I used it, maybe they fixed this.
I lost data do to that fact. It was lucky I did 2 backups(one with TI, one with ghost), or I would have been pretty mad.

Oh, Is this new ghost really ghost, or is it really Drive Image, since they bought them out.

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: Elixer
Hold on, last I checked, True Image doesn't do true image verifications. Ghost does.
What I mean by true image verifications, I mean it compares what is written on the device against the original.
True Image verifies that the file is correct, but does NOT compare against the original source. It does some kind of CRC check, nothing more. At least this was the case when I used it, maybe they fixed this.
I lost data do to that fact. It was lucky I did 2 backups(one with TI, one with ghost), or I would have been pretty mad.

Oh, Is this new ghost really ghost, or is it really Drive Image, since they bought them out.

Not sure what you mean by true verification but a checksum is either correct or it's not. Can't be a little pregnant.

Yes, Ghost 9 is really Drive Image 7 with a few new features.

 

[LED]

True Image 9 makes 1 exact copy of a hard disk, including all the computer data, operating system, and programs...

I would also like to cleaify for the few Peeps who have accused mr of spammng the Program...

I am not an employee or affiliated with them...just passing on 1 Holiday gift which they seny me via e-mail
Dear valued Acronis customer...ladeedadeeda


The number of purchases is not limited, you can share this letter with your friends and colleagues. But don't wait, this is a limited time offer. Buy now before time runs out!



Thanks again and happy holidays!

As always, Compute With Confidence!
Acronis Team

INFORMATION

You are receiving this email because you have purchased Acronis products, registered one of our products or have requested emails from Acronis. Your information is used exclusively by Acronis to provide you with relevant product and company news.

 

[FatCity]

Thanks OP! Five bucks to try out Ghost 9 is my kind of deal. Free shipping and no tax is a bonus.

I've tried True Image and found it lacking. It just doesn't work with my SATA RAID setup. I could create images but the restore process hosed my system. Not only took out the C:\ drive I was trying to restore, but borked D:\ as well. Since Ghost9 makes you load the RAID drivers from floppy (like F6 in XP), I'm hoping it will successfully image and restore my system.

I still use True Image on my PATA drive computers and it works great. But anyone with SATA hard drives and/or RAID should beware of True Image.

 

[AStar617]

Dude you REALLY gotta start putting "AR" in your titles. It's not that hard, and you're a repeat offender

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Elixer
Hold on, last I checked, True Image doesn't do true image verifications. Ghost does.
What I mean by true image verifications, I mean it compares what is written on the device against the original. True Image verifies that the file is correct, but does NOT compare against the original source. It does some kind of CRC check, nothing more. At least this was the case when I used it, maybe they fixed this. I lost data do to that fact. It was lucky I did 2 backups(one with TI, one with ghost), or I would have been pretty mad. Oh, Is this new ghost really ghost, or is it really Drive Image, since they bought them out.

Interesting to know, thanks. That was one reason that I stopped using Retrospect Express Backup, because it lacked user-initiated binary-compare features, it too only did the "backup media CRC-check" thing. How useless!

I use Ghost 2003 booted from DOS mode and swear by it. Hasn't let me down yet. (Edit: Btw, I understand that this is also a copy of the DOS-mode Ghost 2003 included in the Ghost 9 package. So this is definately worth it, even if you only use Ghost 2003 and toss the rest!)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Not sure what you mean by true verification but a checksum is either correct or it's not. Can't be a little pregnant.

For two cases in which a true binary-compare facility is both useful and necessary - consider the case of an overclocked or not fully stable system. If you read the data from the source drive, and then during the process of calculating the CRC and writing it to the backup medium, something gets corrupted, then you will never know - because the CRC is being computed over the incorrect, already-corrupted data.
Another, and perhaps more-useful application, is taking an older backup, and then running a binary-compare against the current copies of files stored on the HD. This is a great way to detect bit-rot, or possibly even a malware infection. I've found some instances of data-corruption this way, and replaced the hardware. It can be quite a lifesaver. Any program that cannot do that, is crippled and broken and should never be used for any sort of critical backup purposes whatsoever, IMO.

 

[Kaido]

I love Ghost. I got it back when Systemworks 2003 was $9. I put a DVDr in, click the backup button, and within an hour I'm good to go

 

[nealr]

Originally posted by: kamranziadar
Amazon has Norton Ghost 9 Disk Imaging software for $4.99 after rebate for upgraders/crossgraders, free shipping.


$60 rebate Exp 12/25/04



Text

I laughed when I saw this. I thought it said "Cross Dressers", not crossgraders.

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Not sure what you mean by true verification but a checksum is either correct or it's not. Can't be a little pregnant.

For two cases in which a true binary-compare facility is both useful and necessary - consider the case of an overclocked or not fully stable system. If you read the data from the source drive, and then during the process of calculating the CRC and writing it to the backup medium, something gets corrupted, then you will never know - because the CRC is being computed over the incorrect, already-corrupted data.
Another, and perhaps more-useful application, is taking an older backup, and then running a binary-compare against the current copies of files stored on the HD. This is a great way to detect bit-rot, or possibly even a malware infection. I've found some instances of data-corruption this way, and replaced the hardware. It can be quite a lifesaver. Any program that cannot do that, is crippled and broken and should never be used for any sort of critical backup purposes whatsoever, IMO.

Ok maybe I'm still not getting the idea here...

The order should be:

1. Caculate checksum of source material.
2. Backup source material.
3. Verify backed up data using the checksum.
4.{ optional } delete source material if need be knowing a good copy exist.


If the checksum doesn't match you know that the backed up data is corrupt and you can start over and make another copy.

 

[Elixer]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Ok maybe I'm still not getting the idea here...

The order should be:

1. Caculate checksum of source material.
2. Backup source material.
3. Verify backed up data using the checksum.
4.{ optional } delete source material if need be knowing a good copy exist.


If the checksum doesn't match you know that the backed up data is corrupt and you can start over and make another copy.

That is the way it should be. However, that is NOT the case for many backup programs. What they do is read the data, then dump the data. They do NOT compare the written data to the source data, it just makes sure that the datafile is OK, as in it just checks that the data file can be read back ok.
I guess a better way of putting it is, it checks the container to make sure it is ok, it *don't* check what is in the container to make sure that data is 100% the same.

If you ever used Nero backup (I sure hope you NEVER do), then what they do (as of v6) is read the data, write the data. verify the data. (so far so good), but on error of the verification, it tells you verification failed. Now it says insert another CD/DVD, and then it reads/writes/verifies again for however many CD/DVD it needs to dump all the data, then finally, at the very end when it is done, you find you still have the same amount of CD/DVDs it asked for. Even though 1 (or more) verification(s) failed. What does this mean? It means you just wasted XX # of CD/DVDs since it never re-wrote the CD/DVD when the verification failed!
I ended up with 8 DVDs that were useless. Thanks Nero!

 

[Esquire]

can you make bootable back up dvd's with 9 or do you still need fdd ?

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: Elixer

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Ok maybe I'm still not getting the idea here...

The order should be:

1. Caculate checksum of source material.
2. Backup source material.
3. Verify backed up data using the checksum.
4.{ optional } delete source material if need be knowing a good copy exist.


If the checksum doesn't match you know that the backed up data is corrupt and you can start over and make another copy.

That is the way it should be. However, that is NOT the case for many backup programs. What they do is read the data, then dump the data. They do NOT compare the written data to the source data, it just makes sure that the datafile is OK, as in it just checks that the data file can be read back ok.
I guess a better way of putting it is, it checks the container to make sure it is ok, it *don't* check what is in the container to make sure that data is 100% the same.

If you ever used Nero backup (I sure hope you NEVER do), then what they do (as of v6) is read the data, write the data. verify the data. (so far so good), but on error of the verification, it tells you verification failed. Now it says insert another CD/DVD, and then it reads/writes/verifies again for however many CD/DVD it needs to dump all the data, then finally, at the very end when it is done, you find you still have the same amount of CD/DVDs it asked for. Even though 1 (or more) verification(s) failed. What does this mean? It means you just wasted XX # of CD/DVDs since it never re-wrote the CD/DVD when the verification failed!
I ended up with 8 DVDs that were useless. Thanks Nero!

haha...that Nero Backitup was a joke on us all. Not sure what ahead was thinking. I tested the program on the assumption that anything from Ahead would be pretty good. The first try was a disaster. I went back to just using the regular Nero and just burning DVD's and having them verified with a checksum.