Re: Casper XP's a winner

• From: "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:21:46 -0700

Timothy Daniels wrote

How does the speed compare to True Image ?

It seems about the same as True Image and much
slower than Ghost/Drive Image.

That doesnt make a lot of sense. True Image 8
can clone a physical drive a lot quicker than Ghost 9

       My True Image 8 took almost 2 hours to clone
   what Drive Image 7.03 (virtually Ghost 9.0) used to
   do (when it worked) in 4 minutes.  For some reason,
   True Image seems to abandon DMA when used in
   my system.

This may be due to my anti-virus or firewall software
running at the same time,

Thats the main reason why cloning best done from a bootable
CD, so you can ensure that there is none of that involved.

       Yup.  I've also read that copying in Safe Mode can
   be a help with that.

The documentation makes no mention of technology pertaining
to bad sectors.  The documentation does say to run chkdsk or
to use the WinXP scan utility to correct errors.

Which basically means that it cant handle them itself.

So its useless for cloning a drive or partition for safety
before attempting to repair a stuffed drive or partition.

       I don't know.  Maybe it just copies the system, errors
   and all, because it does sector copying, not file copying.

For my purposes - making system clones on backup hard drives -
Casper XP is ideally suited.

But that really doesnt make a lot of sense for backup.

       It does for me.  I just abandon the failed or corrupted
   drive, and boot up a backup drive.  If it's just a data file that
   got corrupted, I can drag 'n drop it from a backup hard
   drive in seconds.

It's intuitive and simple and it doesn't need .NET Framework,

Big deal.

       Yup.  Why keep an entire virtual machine and runtime
   environment installed and running just to make partition
   copies?

it can clone individual partitions,

So can ghost 2003.

       So is Drive Image 2002.  But what's currently produced
   and supported matters to some people.

it doesn't shift the partitions around on the destination drive,

Neither does any decent drive cloner.

       The truth of that depends on whether you call
   Partition Magic a "decent drive cloner".

and it's cheaper than Ghost.

Dont believe that. Ghost 2003 as part of
systemworks pro 2003  costs peanuts.

       Cheaper than Ghost 9.0, then.

It will also do incremental backups to existing clones
to save time in maintaining a backup system (a feature
I don't need given the small size of my entire system).

Then you also dont actually need to clone individual
partitions. You'd be much better off using images instead.

       I can't afford to wait an hour or more to copy an
   image back to a hard drive.  With a bootable clone,
   it's virtually just a re-boot.

But if you need to make image files for storage on CDs or DVDs,
or if you want to do "repairs", look to another utility.

Or if you just want to use images on hard drives too.

       Agreed.  Casper XP doesn't make image files that have to
   undergo a "restoration" copy process to retrieve a working
   system.  It makes only bootable clones of a system that need
   no "restoration" step in order to function.  Drive Image 7.x (and
   Ghost 9.0) used to do that for me, but now it (they) just freeze
   my PC.

*TimDaniels*
.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Casper XP's a winner
    • From: Rod Speed

• References:
  • Casper XP's a winner
    • From: Timothy Daniels
  • Re: Casper XP's a winner
    • From: Michel S.
  • Re: Casper XP's a winner
    • From: Timothy Daniels
  • Re: Casper XP's a winner
    • From: Rod Speed

• Prev by Date: Re: HD- Beat frequency on 2 drives ?
• Next by Date: Acronis restore confusion.
• Previous by thread: Re: Casper XP's a winner
• Next by thread: Re: Casper XP's a winner
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

• Security
• UNIX
• Linux
• Coding
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint