P
pjp
Flightless Bird
"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:i50gia$8kv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> In news:Xns9DDE5255298ECVeebleFetzer@216.250.188.141,
> Bert Hyman typed on 24 Aug 2010 13:057 GMT:
>> In news:i50fns$5bt$1@news.eternal-september.org "BillW50"
>> <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> I have no idea why anybody would recommend such a terrible program
>>> for?
>>>
>>
>> Probably because it works well for most people.
>>
>> Judging solely by the comments in this newsgroup, I can't see why
>> anybody would ever use Windows.
>
> If it worked well for most people, most people would be using Acronis True
> Image. But that isn't true, now is it? And the ones that are using it
> happily, I bet most never tested it to see if it actually restores
> correctly or not.
I have used it a number of times for a restore. Last time specifically I was
unsure of some hardware add-on drivers during a clean install and did a
restore to basic first boot image twice. Each worked as expected.
I've also used it a number of times when a hard disk was going bad. It took
a failing 250 gig and cloned it onto a 120 gig (disk was using < 60 gig)
then after that took a 500 gig and cloned it onto a 250 gig (disk was using
< 100 gigs), went as expected. Then cloned a 40 gig onto the 500 went as
expected.
Note - a lot of the swapping was using an external enclosure and swapping a
drive into it rather than the master/slave ide method.
So, for me, the two essentials went just fine.
Regarding memory, footprint usage etc. I uninstalled the program after I
made the special boot disk as it does seem to want to intrude too much. The
boot disk seems to allow you to do everything so it's not a hassle.
>
> And about Windows, most computer users actually uses Windows. So it isn't
> the same thing at all.
>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
>
news:i50gia$8kv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> In news:Xns9DDE5255298ECVeebleFetzer@216.250.188.141,
> Bert Hyman typed on 24 Aug 2010 13:057 GMT:
>> In news:i50fns$5bt$1@news.eternal-september.org "BillW50"
>> <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> I have no idea why anybody would recommend such a terrible program
>>> for?
>>>
>>
>> Probably because it works well for most people.
>>
>> Judging solely by the comments in this newsgroup, I can't see why
>> anybody would ever use Windows.
>
> If it worked well for most people, most people would be using Acronis True
> Image. But that isn't true, now is it? And the ones that are using it
> happily, I bet most never tested it to see if it actually restores
> correctly or not.
I have used it a number of times for a restore. Last time specifically I was
unsure of some hardware add-on drivers during a clean install and did a
restore to basic first boot image twice. Each worked as expected.
I've also used it a number of times when a hard disk was going bad. It took
a failing 250 gig and cloned it onto a 120 gig (disk was using < 60 gig)
then after that took a 500 gig and cloned it onto a 250 gig (disk was using
< 100 gigs), went as expected. Then cloned a 40 gig onto the 500 went as
expected.
Note - a lot of the swapping was using an external enclosure and swapping a
drive into it rather than the master/slave ide method.
So, for me, the two essentials went just fine.
Regarding memory, footprint usage etc. I uninstalled the program after I
made the special boot disk as it does seem to want to intrude too much. The
boot disk seems to allow you to do everything so it's not a hassle.
>
> And about Windows, most computer users actually uses Windows. So it isn't
> the same thing at all.
>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
>