I understand and can appreciate your position. Personally I don't believe
reviews much though. I've bought and used many products and developed an
opinion totally different from those reviews I read. I'm a happy user of
Ghost and am satisfied with it's speed and footprint. And the cost was free
after rebates. Like I said though, I haven't used them all and am not in a
position to make comparisons. But I suspect many on here speaking with
great authority one way or another haven't either. Take care.


"Heirloom" <roland58XX@XXcox.net> wrote in message
news:elOWPgVEGHA.2036@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>