Software to clone a Windows XP Install to a new drive?

[Shinnokxz]

We have a business computer that is suffering from a failing hard drive and I was wondering what the best application is to use for hooking up a new drive as a slave and cloning over the Windows install?

[SuperSparks]

Acronis True Image

Acronis True Image Home

[HobNob]

SuperSparks

I've never used Acronis, I've always used Ghost. Is that your personal choice for any reason? I can't fault Ghost so far, so just curious. If it is just a personal choice fair enough, I was just wondering if there's anything particular that sways you with Acronis.

[SuperSparks]

Ghost was OK until Symantec got hold of it, then it became just a rebadged version of DriveImage which, not to put too fine a point on it, was crap. I found out the hard way a few years ago. For imaging software that you want to run from DOS, Ghost up to and including v2002 is fine though.

True Image is just better in so many ways, that it's hard to enumerate them all.

[snooker]

Hi, I never use these but they are free

http://www.xxclone.com/

http://www.karenware.com/powertools/ptreplicator.asp

I myself use Acronis

[HAN]

I agree that a drive imaging program would be the best choice here. Something like Karen's Replicator would not do the job as it only backs up files and folders, not everything, such as the operating system. My personal favorites in drive imaging are ShadowProtect Desktop and Image for DOS (neither of which is free.)

One thing that would make this transfer easier is to replace the old drive with one of equal or larger size. Going with a smaller drive can sometimes bring up a few issues.

[DVOM]

Sparks, I gotta ask, if you've got a bit of software, let's say Ghost 2002, and it's doing everything you need and desire, why do you upgrade?

And if and when you do actually upgrade and decide you don't like the new version, why don't you just revert to the older one that was working to your satisfaction?



I'm still using Ghost 2003, it's hard to beat "fast and reliable".

BTW, do you upgrade your cat every time there's a new version?

[Train]

I'm still using Ghost 2003, it's hard to beat "fast and reliable".

2003 still works fine for me. But then I use the floppy.

[SuperSparks]

Why aren't we all still running DOS on a 386?

Ghost 2003 wasn't doing what I needed, so I changed to True Image and found that it was a million times better.

[dneilson]

I had been using Ghost for a long time also. The reason I changed is it is SO much easier to use. With Ghost you have to shut down the computer, reboot with a floppy, enter a licence number, do the backup, shut down the computer, remember to remove the floppy disk and boot up the computer again. With Acronis you open it up right from Windows, do your backup and that's it.

[Train]

2003 did not have the license number garbage that 2002 had.


And we all forgot thst teh hdd manufactors have a on their websites that preps and transfer files from the old drive to the new one.

For example Seagate has DiskWizard for the seagate drives and MaxBlast for the maxtor/Quantum hdds. The price is right too.

[dneilson]

2003 may have done away with the Licence garbage but not the rest of the time consuming, boring, aggrevating requirements. I use the Seagate Disk Wizard you mention which is Acronis minus a few fancy features which most people don't need--I just use it for Imaging only and it's fast. reliable and very easy to use. And yes, the price is right--I always like free stuff that really works. We all do things our own way and if you like Ghost and don't mind all the extra time and gyrations required to use it there's nothing wrong with that.

[Train]

Very true each to our own thing, and the dos side does not bother me at all.
Plus it gives me time to refill my coffee!