Re: Casper XP's a winner
- From: "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 06:38:35 +1000
Rod Speed <rod_speed@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> 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 todo (when it
>> worked) in 4 minutes.
>
> You must have stuffed something up very comprehensively
> when I got the opposite result, TI cloned the entire 120G
> drive to a 160G, adjusting the partition sizes in the process,
> much more quickly than Ghost 9 did just one of the partitions.
>
>> For some reason, True Image seems to abandon DMA when used in my
>> system.
>
> Then your general claim about TI and Ghost is clearly just plain
> wrong.
>>>> 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.
>
> Not necessarily a bootable CD either, just a non OS boot too.
>
>> Yup. I've also read that copying in Safe Mode can be a help with
>> that.
>
> Sure.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Its obvious from the instruction to correct errors before using it.
>
>> Maybe it just copies the system, errors and all, because it does
>> sector copying, not file copying.
>
> If thats all it did, there is no need to correct errors first.
>
> And sector copying has real downsides too, you
> have to copy everything, not just the used sectors.
>
> And there isnt just file or sector copying either, the other
> approach is to just copy the sectors that have anything
> useful in them, dont bother copying the free sectors.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Nope, you've always got that wrong.
>
>> I just abandon the failed or corrupted drive, and boot up a backup
>> drive.
>
> And you dont need that instant switch, it makes
> a lot more sense to use images instead.
>
>> If it's just a data file that got corrupted, I can drag 'n drop it
>> from a backup hard drive in seconds.
>
> You can move a file from an image in seconds
> too with any decent modern imaging app.
>
>>>> It's intuitive and simple and it doesn't need .NET Framework,
>
>>> Big deal.
>
>> Yup.
>
> Nup.
>
>> Why keep an entire virtual machine and runtime environment installed
>> and running just to make partition copies?
>
> No need for that with a decent modern imager.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> And most have enough of a clue to realise that
> cloning partitions doesnt have any advantage.
>
>>>> 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".
>
> It aint a drive cloner, its a partition ute.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> That aint true either. You're using list
> prices, they aint the only prices available.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Pity that if you actually need an instant recovery from a problem,
> you dont get it when any failure in that PC will see you without
> anything useable for much longer. You need a standby PC, not
> just a clone of the boot partition which is one of the least likely
> failures.
>>>> 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.
>
> So can all the other cloners.
>
>> Drive Image 7.x (and Ghost 9.0) used to do that for me, but now it
>> (they) just freeze my PC.
>
> Then you need to fix that problem, not desperately
> hunt around for something that doesnt freeze.
Bet its the stupid removable drive bays and round cables.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Casper XP's a winner
- From: Timothy Daniels
- Re: Casper XP's a winner
- 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
- Re: Casper XP's a winner
- From: Timothy Daniels
- Re: Casper XP's a winner
- From: Rod Speed
- Casper XP's a winner
- Prev by Date: Re: Casper XP's a winner
- Next by Date: Re: Recover Data from Damaged Harddrive - how? ideas?
- Previous by thread: Re: Casper XP's a winner
- Next by thread: Re: Casper XP's a winner
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
