Good point, Dave, and well taken. I did say "don't know about Ghost"
because I have never used it. I did, however, do a considerable amount of
comparison on different websites that reviewed different backup proggies.
Maybe unfairly, on my part, but, I formed my opinions from that. I guess
you could say that is putting 'blind trust' in the opinions of others, but,
tests did show that Acronis was considerably faster, a smaller footprint and
less cost. What I 'did not know' (remember) was whether Ghost could do the
incremental or individual file/folder backups and that was what I was trying
to convey.
Admittedly, I should have made myself more clear and honor your statement.
My intent was sincere.
Heirloom, old and will try to do better


"Dave" <funinatl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wcGdnUTDxpzGhybeRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> It's interessting that you say "Acronis True Image........much faster and
> more feature rich" and then you say "don't know about Ghost, but, with
> Acronis you can do incremental backups and you can restore individual
> files/folders or the complete backup". How do you compare their features
> in one statement and then say you don't know whether Ghost will do those
> things? It sound like maybe you like one and don't know much about the
> other. If so, just say that. BTW, Ghost will do incrementals and
> restore individual files/folders or complete backups too. But I don't
> know much about Acronis True Image so I won't attempt to make a comparison
> or say which is better.
>
>
>
>>"Heirloom" <roland58XX@XXcox.net> wrote in message
>>news:eANjQjKEGHA.1088@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Steven,
>> For about half the cost of Ghost, you can get Acronis True
>> Image........much faster and more feature rich. You can catch it on
>> special for about $19-$29 U.S. I have been most impressed with
>> it....don't know about Ghost, but, with Acronis you can do incremental
>> backups and you can restore individual files/folders or the complete
>> backup.
>> Heirloom, old and works for me
>>
>>
>> "Steven Myers" <tididit@YOUknowWHATtoDObellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:Ztyuf.19364$3I3.7900@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
>>> Heirloom wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Norton/Symantec
>>>> applications are also very invasive. Even after uninstalling, there is
>>>> a ton of detritus scattered throughout the machine that must be removed
>>>> manually if you want it gone.
>>>
>>> Yep. One by one, I found far less instrusive apps to do the things
>>> Symantec
>>> apps had been doing for me. It finally came down to Ghost, but Symantec
>>> swallowed its major competition. So I made a few Ghost boot disks and
>>> then
>>> uninstalled everything Symantec. Had to pick through the registry for
>>> the
>>> many remaining references, of course.
>>
>>
>
>