Comparison Acronis against Norton Ghost

  compumac 11:42 06 Sep 2008
Locked

I have a main PC with two internal hard drives and one external hard drive. I have been using Norton Ghost as part of Norton SystemWorks for a good many years now creating images of my main partition (containing the system files etc) to both internal and external drives. After reading on the forum as to the merits of Acronis True Image, I purchased the latest version V11 and created an image using it.
Today I thought I would create fresh images of my main partition (37Gb) using both Acronis and Ghost for like for like comparison.
Ghost took forty minutes to create the image and verify it from scratch to an internal drive.
Acronis spent 35 minutes analyzing the partitions before any image creation began, subsequently creating and verifying the image taking a further thirty minutes. This resulted in a total time of 65 minutes.
Whereas I accept the fact that time is not the important attribute in the exercise and they are fairly close in that anyway, I query the analysing by Acronis of the partitions and the time being taken to do it.
Could I be doing something wrong in the way I am using Acronis?

  compumac 15:38 06 Sep 2008

Now sorted.

  woodchip 16:02 06 Sep 2008

Why what was you doing wrong

  jeffjohn 11:37 07 Sep 2008

I have an extensive home network with a Naslite NAS server. Acronis was offers true simple storage anywhere on the network; I dumped Ghost after failing to achieve this with Norton.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5 review

50 best online Adobe XD tutorials

iPad Pro 10.5in (2017) review

Comment connecter un MacBook à une TV ?