Disk Image Software

[metallicafan]

I am wanting to get some software that allows me to make exact images of my hard drives and then when something goes wrong with one of my installs I can just copy the image back to the way it was when it was imaged. I dont need lots of fancy options, just the basic tools.

I have 3 computers. If I can restore the image over the network that would be ok. Otherwise if I have to copy the image on an external HD and then restore it thats ok too. Also is it possible to have an image stored on a secondary HD on a computer and restore the primary boot drive? The 2 programs I have been researching are Ghost and Acronis True Image 9.0. I have one version of Ghost 2003 but havent really used it much. The licesing only allows it to be installed on one computer, which is kind of limiting to me. Is this the same way with Acronis True Image 9.0? Im not sure if Ghost 9/10 is compatible with Ghost 2003?

If anyone has any recomendations or suggestions that would be great! Thanks.

 

[RavenD]

I've had good experiences with Ghost, havent tried anything else though.

 

[metallicafan]

Thanks. anyone else?

 

[LhasaCM]

I've used Acronis True Image for a few years now, and haven't had any complaints. I switched to it from an old version of Ghost because True Image actually worked well with making disk images from within Windows (rather than booting to a DOS prompt). Though that's not the case with Ghost now, I haven't felt a reason to think about switching back. (I tried Ghost 2003 because it came with a drive I bought, but didn't care for it.) The interface is fairly clean and user friendly. To address your specific items:

If I can restore the image over the network that would be ok.

This area in the software has definitely improved. Older versions (back around v6) were quite spotty, but with version 9.0 I've had no issues. Like anything network related, it can still be a bit finicky when restoring off of the boot disk depending on your network configuration, but nothing insurmountable.

Otherwise if I have to copy the image on an external HD and then restore it thats ok too.

Definitely works. (Used this for my wife's computer a few weeks ago)

Also is it possible to have an image stored on a secondary HD on a computer and restore the primary boot drive?

Again, definitely works. This is how I keep my backups stored. This way, if I need to restore the whole system, it's relatively quick and painless. Also, if I just need to grab a few files I can mount the image as a drive in Windows, and copy over what I need. What's also nice now is that you can backup an image or just individual folders based on your needs. (For example, I have scheduled weekly incremental backups of the OS/apps/games drives, but nightly incremental backups of just my document folders.)

The licesing only allows it to be installed on one computer, which is kind of limiting to me. Is this the same way with Acronis True Image 9.0?

There's the rub - it's the same with True Image. However, you can easily try a trial of True Image (download from their website to play around with it and see what you like, and compare it to the copy of Ghost you already have and see which one fits your needs more. (I'm not sure if it's feature limited or if it's just a time-limit.) It's also a touch cheaper than Ghost.

 

[LhasaCM]

(I'm not sure if it's feature limited or if it's just a time-limit.)

Just found out - it is a 15 day trial. The only feature that is disabled is the ability to create an image from a boot disk. Everything else (in theory) works.

 

[metallicafan]

Thanks very much for the info. Sounds like this might be the software for me. Just one thing. I think I will download the trial version and try it out. What do you mean by not being able to create an image from a boot disk? You can only make images of non-boot disks with the trial version?

 

[LhasaCM]

True Image works from Windows like any normal application. Alternatively, you can create a boot CD to run it for cases when, for example, you can't even boot into Windows successfully.

My understanding is: in the trial, you can create/restore an image of any drive while running the software in Windows (which is the easier way to do it, anyway). However, you're not allowed to create an image while running the program from the boot CD.

 

[metallicafan]

thanks a lot.

Anyone else have any input?

 

[qdemn7]

I used to use Ghost 2003, but then switched to True Image 8.0 and have never looked back. True Image is simply a great program. It's fast and simple to use. You can run it from Windows, from boot floppies, or simply pop the True Image CD into your drive, boot from it and run it from there. True Image is up to 9.0, but I haven't felt the need to change. The ONLY drawback to True Image as opposed to Ghost 2003 is that True Image will not work with DVD--R/+R, only with DVD -RW/+RW. But I simply backup my images to an external HD, so that is no longer a problem for me. Acronis offers much better support than Symantec. I would only get Ghost if I could find a legal cheap OEM copy of 2003. Later Ghost versions are terrible from what I've read.

EDIT: OOPS! I meant DVD not CD, fixed for clarity.

 

[LhasaCM]

The ONLY drawback to True Image as opposed to Ghost 2003 is that True Image will not work with CD--R/+R, only with CD -RW/+RW.

Really? That's odd - I haven't had any problems backing up directly to CDs or DVDs of any format (CD-R/RW, DVD-R/RW, DVD+R/RW, even dual layer worked the one time I tried it), though I usually just backup to another hard drive. However, I do recall having problems a few versions ago with creating a boot CD for the program when I had Easy CD Creator installed and DirectCD running in the background, but ending that process fixed things. (I'm not sure if that's still a problem since I've moved away from Roxio.)

 

[Impulse]

Hrm, I've used Ghost 9.0 without any issues whatsoever ever since building this system, not sure what's new on 10.0 but from what I remember 9.0 was a significant upgrade over 2003... I can make images over the network, to external drives, etc, it's pretty snappy about it too and the shceduling tool is solid, can't ask for much more.

When I went to get 9.0 I remember trying to decide between True Image and Ghost, at that point it seemed like a toss-up and I only went with Ghost because the latest version had been out a bit longer than True Image and was thus probably more stable. From what I've read about the newer just-released True Image it's bundled in some new features Ghost doesn't have though, can't remember specifics now, think it was on PC Mag.

Edit: Wow, my [H]Forum account still works indeed... Hadn't posted in almost a year, it's good to be back.

 

[gud4u]

I use Terabyte 'Image for Windows', which also includes 'Image for DOS'. Package price is $28.

IFW provides excellent Image_Windows_From_Windows capability.

IFD provides backup/restore under DOS, booting from either floppy or CD/DVD.

Hope this helps!

 

[sitheris]

I used to use the latest version of Ghost but it gave me so many problems w/ scheduled backups that i switched to Acronis True Image and couldn't be happier

 

[AceGoober]

I switched from Ghost version 9 to Acronis True Image version 9.

True Image provided a easier solution to transferring customer data over to larger hard drives.

 

[metallicafan]

thanks to all those who responded.

I am going to try the Trial Version of Acronis True image 9 and I also might have to google Terabyte Image for Windows and see what comes up. The Acrronis package really sounds like it might be what I'm looking for. Thanks again. If there are any other opinions feel free to chime in.

 

[malicious]

not to thread jack but the OP seems to have gotten good advice so far..

instead of starting a new thread I thought i would chime in here.

I reformat often. I like to get my photos, music, apps etc.. off my computer, then format and reinstall, the load them back up again.

this is tedious with cd-r's or networked comptuters..

the image apps you guys are talking about is to take you back to an exact copy of windows right .. with drivers updated and all.. kinda like using system restore..

anyway .. i don't need an "image" so much as just an easier way to back up files for a format.

can i just create another partion and keep data there while i format the OS partition.. or would my files get wiped.

sorry for the noobness and/or thread jacking ..



mal

 

[LhasaCM]

Short answer is yes, you can, as long as you're careful

Well, for photos, music, documents, etc., a separate partition or physical drive is often a good way to go (in addition to regular backups, etc.). As long as you don't repartition the hard drive during the Windows installation process, the data is as safe as can be. However, in doing that and wiping the OS drive, you have to be careful of anything that gets saved on the same drive as Windows by default (license information for purchased downloaded music, Outlook mail files, etc.) At least in my experience, there's always something I forget and I'm grateful I saved the disk image.

For applications - if you format and reinstall Windows, you'll have to reinstall the applications to get them working (to restore the registry keys, file associations, etc), so installing them on a separate partition isn't that great of a solution for this purpose. That being said, it is useful to keep either ISO's or downloaded installation files separately, to ease re-installation, assuming hard drive space isn't a constraint.

True Image, for example, can be used to either do a full image of the hard drive (including drivers, etc.), much like System Restore as you said. This can also be useful to preserve a "virgin" installation of Windows, to cut a small amount of time off of the format/reinstall process. However, you can use it just to backup individual folders, such as for documents, photos, etc.

Does that help?

 

[malicious]

I think i'm just going to get true image 9 .. seems to be the answer

 

[Impulse]

Both True Image and Ghost can do incremental images if you wanted to do daily backups of your entire system, I have enough hard drive space that I don't even bother with that though... I just do a full image every 2 or 3 days (automated), it's pretty darn fast so I don't see the point in incremental images (just creates a bigger hassle if something does happen and I want to restore one).

That being said, an imaging program shouldn't be your only source of backup, when you create and restore an image you're restoring the entire drive as it was at the time of the image creation, byte for byte. Any file you edited, setting you changed, or thing you tweaked since then is gone. System Restore merely replaces key Windows files and drivers.

Depending on your routine, periodical drive imaging may be fine or it may mean you lose some work in the process, I'd still recommend doing backups to disks (or thumb drives) if you're working with something you absolutely can't lose. When you restore an image there's also the danger of restoring a damaged one. Backing up a couple files that you've been working on to a flash drive or disk will always be faster than a drive image, it's all about redundancy here.

If you happen to restore an image that has issues (whatever problem you had was already present at the time of the image) you might need to fall back on an older image. I usually keep the last 2 or 4 on the drive, as well as an original one from when I first set up my system.

 

[LhasaCM]

...so I don't see the point in incremental images (just creates a bigger hassle if something does happen and I want to restore one).

With True Image, you can choose which point in time to restore the incremental image. You're not stuck with just the latest version. (With a differential backup, you can only choose between the original image and the latest and greatest, not each intervening snapshot.)

That being said, an imaging program shouldn't be your only source of backup, when you create and restore an image you're restoring the entire drive as it was at the time of the image creation, byte for byte. Any file you edited, setting you changed, or thing you tweaked since then is gone. System Restore merely replaces key Windows files and drivers.

Actually, with True Image (at least, I'd imagine Ghost has similar functionality somewhere but don't know for sure) you can restore individual files or folders from an image. You can also create backups of individual files/folders, so you're not stuck restoring all or nothing. You can also use the same software to backup individual folders/files instead of the whole disk image. It's become quite versatile over the years.

it's all about redundancy here

Amen.

If you happen to restore an image that has issues (whatever problem you had was already present at the time of the image) you might need to fall back on an older image. I usually keep the last 2 or 4 on the drive, as well as an original one from when I first set up my system.

That's why I use incremental backups. It's easier on the hard drive, and with it, I have the option of picking any point I made an incremental backup to restore. For example, if I discover that program X I installed two months ago hosed up my system, I can go back to that time, but have the full image archive from the most recent backup to grab any individual files I might need from the interim period. Again, it's all about redundancy.

 

[Impulse]

With True Image, you can choose which point in time to restore the incremental image. You're not stuck with just the latest version. (With a differential backup, you can only choose between the original image and the latest and greatest, not each intervening snapshot.)

I'm pretty sure Ghost works exactly the same way, you tell it when you want each incremental image created and you can restore as far back as you want... BUT, you have to restore each previous incremental image the farther back you want to go, which I consider a bit of a hassle, and the reason why I just do full images every couple of days.

Truth be told, incremental images probably keeps you safer, like you said, you'll have a lot more space for the images themselves and can pinpoint the stage in time where you want to restore back to a lot better... I started doing full images just because when I was testing the stability of my system I was restoring an image every couple of days once I'd pushed it too far (while wanting to avoid incremental image restoring issues), and I just kept the habit.

Actually, with True Image (at least, I'd imagine Ghost has similar functionality somewhere but don't know for sure) you can restore individual files or folders from an image. You can also create backups of individual files/folders, so you're not stuck restoring all or nothing. You can also use the same software to backup individual folders/files instead of the whole disk image. It's become quite versatile over the years.

Of course, you can do that with Ghost as well, but making an image of just a couple files is kind of a clunky way of backing 'em up... Or maybe not clunky, more like overkill, it's easier to copy them to a disk/flash-drive and easier to copy them back ('specially if it's just a couple important files that you're actively working on); even if mounting the image and restoring individual files is also a piece of cake.

I just like having personal files like photos and such backed up in a way that I can flip thru them on any PC regardless of whether I'm also backing them up thru an image of my entire drive as well. Right now I have Ghost installed on other machines so if something happens I could just load the images there and pull the files out, but that might not always be the case.

 

[/dev/null]

This seems to work ok

 

[LhasaCM]

...BUT, you have to restore each previous incremental image the farther back you want to go

Yuck. With the latest version of True Image, at least, you're not stuck with that hassle. When opening the image, I'm given the option of which date I want to go back to, instead of having to slowly turn back the clock.

Of course, you can do that with Ghost as well, but making an image of just a couple files is kind of a clunky way of backing 'em up... Or maybe not clunky, more like overkill, it's easier to copy them to a disk/flash-drive and easier to copy them back ('specially if it's just a couple important files that you're actively working on); even if mounting the image and restoring individual files is also a piece of cake.

Agreed - it's a question of degree and attentiveness. For a file or two, using the imaging software is way beyond overkill, and definitely not worth the effort for frequently used "in progress" items. The only reason I use it for documents is because I can schedule it to run every night on my documents folders, and that way, I'm not completely reliant on remembering to move that important paper over to a USB key or e-mail it to myself as a safeguard. Just another redundancy on my part to mitigate the risk of forgetfulness and minimize the loss if one hard drive fails until I get some free time to get a reliable RAID array going...