Re: Invalid partition offset?
- From: David Ellis <djemkitso@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:41:40 -0400
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The obvious thing to do is to not use Ghost at all, use True Image
instead, and get both a decent modern incremental hot imager and
quite a bit of other stuff that none of the Ghosts actually do as well.
The sources I cited in my previous post also regard True Image as
superior to Ghost. Your recommendation agrees with these (and other)
sources.
Unfortunately, my company has an enterprise relationship with Symantec
and none with Acronis. True Image is not approved for use on our
business workstations. Ghost 2003 is the designated application for
image backups, but Ghost 9 and 10 are specifically disapproved because
they have a track record of unreliable backups and restores.
Corporate policy prohibits installation of software on their machines
without express permission from management. However, it won't hurt to
ask about True Image as an alternative to Ghost 2003 for image
backups. I am far from the only person who has been stung by problems
with Symantec software.
--
David J Ellis
7 Hampton Road / Natick, MA 01760
djemkitso@xxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Invalid partition offset?
- From: Rod Speed
- Re: Invalid partition offset?
- References:
- Invalid partition offset?
- From: David Ellis
- Re: Invalid partition offset?
- From: Rod Speed
- Re: Invalid partition offset?
- From: David Ellis
- Re: Invalid partition offset?
- From: Rod Speed
- Invalid partition offset?
- Prev by Date: dead HDD
- Next by Date: Re: dead HDD
- Previous by thread: Re: Invalid partition offset?
- Next by thread: Re: Invalid partition offset?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|