Re: Ghost or something like it? - Storage

This is a discussion on Re: Ghost or something like it? - Storage ; "Rod Speed" wrote in message news:4vvi4vF1e5mj1U1@mid.individual.net... > Keith Wilby wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> Contumeliorus Florius wrote >>>> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 06:14:47 -0500, Joe wrote > >>>> Well, you don't need to install Acronis True Image on ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Re: Ghost or something like it?

  1. Re: installing True Image or Ghost on multiple home computers?

    "Rod Speed" wrote in message
    news:4vvi4vF1e5mj1U1@mid.individual.net...
    > Keith Wilby wrote
    >> Rod Speed wrote
    >>> Contumeliorus Florius wrote
    >>>> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 06:14:47 -0500, Joe wrote

    >
    >>>> Well, you don't need to install Acronis True Image on each
    >>>> computer to use it on any computer. You install it to one
    >>>> computer and then you use it to make a boot cdrom. You can use
    >>>> that boot cdrom with any computer (not legally but it is a grey area

    >
    >>> Nope. They dont allow that, no grey area what so ever, legally.

    >
    >> I don't understand Acronis' licensing. They say you can use True Image
    >> on more than one PC provided that you only have it installed on one at a
    >> time.

    >
    > Correct.
    >
    >> That's just daft

    >
    > Nope.
    >
    >> - why not just limit you to using one instance at a time?

    >
    > Because they clearly believe that their approach is better.
    >
    > And they are right, most obviously when you upgrade etc.
    >
    > Even MS has the same approach with all but the OEM verions of their stuff
    > and MS's claim about what applys with OEM versions flouts the law in most
    > first world countrys and even the MS EULA acknowledges that and says that
    > that restriction with OEM versions doesnt apply when its contrary to law.
    >


    I used to use a planning application called Plantrac Outlook which was
    developed by a small software company in Woking called Computerline and
    their licensing allowed for as many installations as you liked provided that
    concurrent usage was limited to the number of licenses held. It relied on
    honesty but then again so does the other (Acronis) method. "Why force
    people to go to the trouble of uninstalling when you are trusted to use only
    one instance per license?" was the philosophy and it didn't seem to do them
    any harm.



  2. Re: installing True Image or Ghost on multiple home computers?

    Keith Wilby wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> Keith Wilby wrote
    >>> Rod Speed wrote
    >>>> Contumeliorus Florius wrote
    >>>>> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 06:14:47 -0500, Joe wrote


    >>>>> Well, you don't need to install Acronis True Image on each
    >>>>> computer to use it on any computer. You install it to one
    >>>>> computer and then you use it to make a boot cdrom. You can use
    >>>>> that boot cdrom with any computer (not legally but it is a grey area


    >>>> Nope. They dont allow that, no grey area what so ever, legally.


    >>> I don't understand Acronis' licensing. They say you can use True
    >>> Image on more than one PC provided that you only have it installed
    >>> on one at a time.


    >> Correct.


    >>> That's just daft


    >> Nope.


    >>> - why not just limit you to using one instance at a time?


    >> Because they clearly believe that their approach is better.


    >> And they are right, most obviously when you upgrade etc.


    >> Even MS has the same approach with all but the OEM verions of their
    >> stuff and MS's claim about what applys with OEM versions flouts the
    >> law in most first world countrys and even the MS EULA acknowledges
    >> that and says that that restriction with OEM versions doesnt apply
    >> when its contrary to law.


    > I used to use a planning application called Plantrac Outlook which was
    > developed by a small software company in Woking called Computerline
    > and their licensing allowed for as many installations as you liked provided that concurrent usage
    > was limited to the number of licenses held.


    Yeah, there's been a few that do it like that.

    > It relied on honesty but then again so does the other (Acronis) method.


    Some enforce it, not that hard to do.

    > "Why force people to go to the trouble of uninstalling when you are trusted to use only one
    > instance per license?" was the philosophy and it didn't seem to do them any harm.


    Trouble is that its easy to exploit by those who choose to flout the restriction.

    The whole point of the MS system is that hordes chose not to buy it when that was easy.

    Plenty choose not to buy Acronis products, just download them instead.



  3. Re: Ghost or something like it?

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    >
    > Previously Arno Wagner wrote:
    > > Previously John Turco wrote:
    > >> Arno Wagner wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> Previously Joe wrote:
    > >>> > So, the obvious question- if True Image is that good, why is it out of
    > >>> > business while Ghost continues? Better marketers?
    > >>>
    > >>> > Joe
    > >>>
    > >>> What else? Why is MS so large with their abysmally bad technology?
    > >>> Why did VHS make it?
    > >>>
    > >>> Arno

    >
    > >> Hello, Arno:

    >
    > >> VHS "made it," because it offered more recording time than Betamax did,
    > >> and at a nominal hit in video quality. There's nothing "abysmally bad"
    > >> about it...not even remotely so.

    >
    > > Not applying the "abysmally bad" to VHS. Still, the quality hit was
    > > quite visible. We had Betamax equipment at shool for the video
    > > equipment.


    Hello, Arno:

    Sorry, I disagree; I believe the "quality hit" was negligible, not
    "quite visible."

    > Forgot to say that this was all PAL. With "Never The Same Color"
    > (NTSC), it might not have been too visible.
    >
    > Arno


    Don't forget, though: PAL, and SECAM, are both based on NTSC! They were
    created for political/economic reasons, not technical ones, basically
    (i.e., Europe didn't want to become too dependent on post-WWII, U.S.
    technology).


    Cordially,
    John Turco

  4. Re: Ghost or something like it?

    Keith Wilby wrote:
    >
    > "John Turco" wrote in message
    > news:4595E085.968C21D7@concentric.net...
    > >
    > > Hello, Arno:
    > >
    > > VHS "made it," because it offered more recording time than Betamax did,
    > > and at a nominal hit in video quality. There's nothing "abysmally bad"
    > > about it...not even remotely so.
    > >

    >
    > But V2000 had the best of both worlds, you could even turn the cassettes
    > over and record on the "other side" too. Better marketting for VHS ensured
    > that V2000 as a VCR sank without trace, although this is the technology used
    > (AIUI) in 8mm camcorders.
    >
    > Keith.



    Hello, Keith:

    Okay, enlighten me (and the newsgroup): What was "V2000?"


    Cordially,
    John Turco

  5. Re: Ghost or something like it?

    John Turco wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >>
    >> Previously Arno Wagner wrote:
    >>> Previously John Turco wrote:
    >>>> Arno Wagner wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Previously Joe wrote:
    >>>>>> So, the obvious question- if True Image is that good, why is it
    >>>>>> out of business while Ghost continues? Better marketers?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Joe
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What else? Why is MS so large with their abysmally bad technology?
    >>>>> Why did VHS make it?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Arno

    >>
    >>>> Hello, Arno:

    >>
    >>>> VHS "made it," because it offered more recording time than Betamax
    >>>> did, and at a nominal hit in video quality. There's nothing
    >>>> "abysmally bad" about it...not even remotely so.

    >>
    >>> Not applying the "abysmally bad" to VHS. Still, the quality hit was
    >>> quite visible. We had Betamax equipment at shool for the video
    >>> equipment.

    >
    > Hello, Arno:
    >
    > Sorry, I disagree; I believe the "quality hit" was negligible, not
    > "quite visible."
    >
    >> Forgot to say that this was all PAL. With "Never The Same Color"
    >> (NTSC), it might not have been too visible.


    > Don't forget, though: PAL, and SECAM, are both based on NTSC!


    No they arent.

    > They were created for political/economic reasons,
    > not technical ones, basically (i.e., Europe didn't want to
    > become too dependent on post-WWII, U.S. technology).


    That is true of SECAM, but not PAL.



  6. Re: Ghost or something like it?

    John Turco wrote:
    > Keith Wilby wrote:
    >>
    >> "John Turco" wrote in message
    >> news:4595E085.968C21D7@concentric.net...
    >>>
    >>> Hello, Arno:
    >>>
    >>> VHS "made it," because it offered more recording time than Betamax
    >>> did, and at a nominal hit in video quality. There's nothing
    >>> "abysmally bad" about it...not even remotely so.
    >>>

    >>
    >> But V2000 had the best of both worlds, you could even turn the
    >> cassettes over and record on the "other side" too. Better
    >> marketting for VHS ensured that V2000 as a VCR sank without trace,
    >> although this is the technology used (AIUI) in 8mm camcorders.


    > Okay, enlighten me (and the newsgroup): What was "V2000?"


    Another video tape technology that never did fly.



  7. Re: Ghost or something like it?

    Previously John Turco wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >>
    >> Previously Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> > Previously John Turco wrote:
    >> >> Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Previously Joe wrote:
    >> >>> > So, the obvious question- if True Image is that good, why is it out of
    >> >>> > business while Ghost continues? Better marketers?
    >> >>>
    >> >>> > Joe
    >> >>>
    >> >>> What else? Why is MS so large with their abysmally bad technology?
    >> >>> Why did VHS make it?
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Arno

    >>
    >> >> Hello, Arno:

    >>
    >> >> VHS "made it," because it offered more recording time than Betamax did,
    >> >> and at a nominal hit in video quality. There's nothing "abysmally bad"
    >> >> about it...not even remotely so.

    >>
    >> > Not applying the "abysmally bad" to VHS. Still, the quality hit was
    >> > quite visible. We had Betamax equipment at shool for the video
    >> > equipment.


    > Hello, Arno:


    > Sorry, I disagree; I believe the "quality hit" was negligible, not
    > "quite visible."
    >
    >> Forgot to say that this was all PAL. With "Never The Same Color"
    >> (NTSC), it might not have been too visible.
    >>
    >> Arno


    > Don't forget, though: PAL, and SECAM, are both based on NTSC! They were
    > created for political/economic reasons, not technical ones, basically
    > (i.e., Europe didn't want to become too dependent on post-WWII, U.S.
    > technology).


    I have not seen SECAM. But PAL may be based on NTCS, but the quality
    difference is rather strong when watching NTCS for the first time
    after a lifetime of PAL. That is, I assume there is is not a generally
    worse TV broadcast and equipment quality in the US.

    Maybe the derived system is just also an improved system...

    Arno

  8. Re: Ghost or something like it?

    "Arno Wagner" wrote:
    > I have not seen SECAM. But PAL may be based on NTCS,
    > but the quality difference is rather strong when watching NTCS
    > for the first time after a lifetime of PAL....



    Puh-leeeez! It's "NTSC" - meaning "Never The Same Color",
    or "Now To Suck Crap", or whatever.

    *TimDaniels*

  9. Re: Ghost or something like it?

    Previously Timothy Daniels wrote:
    > "Arno Wagner" wrote:
    >> I have not seen SECAM. But PAL may be based on NTCS,
    >> but the quality difference is rather strong when watching NTCS
    >> for the first time after a lifetime of PAL....



    > Puh-leeeez! It's "NTSC" - meaning "Never The Same Color",
    > or "Now To Suck Crap", or whatever.


    Ooops....

    Arno

  10. Re: Ghost or something like it?

    "John Turco" wrote in message
    news:459F4014.83EDED8A@concentric.net...
    > Keith Wilby wrote:
    >>
    >> "John Turco" wrote in message
    >> news:4595E085.968C21D7@concentric.net...
    >> >
    >> > Hello, Arno:
    >> >
    >> > VHS "made it," because it offered more recording time than Betamax did,
    >> > and at a nominal hit in video quality. There's nothing "abysmally bad"
    >> > about it...not even remotely so.
    >> >

    >>
    >> But V2000 had the best of both worlds, you could even turn the cassettes
    >> over and record on the "other side" too. Better marketting for VHS
    >> ensured
    >> that V2000 as a VCR sank without trace, although this is the technology
    >> used
    >> (AIUI) in 8mm camcorders.
    >>
    >> Keith.

    >
    >
    > Hello, Keith:
    >
    > Okay, enlighten me (and the newsgroup): What was "V2000?"
    >
    >


    Video 2000 was, IIRC, the Philips attempt at the home video market. I
    distinctly remember a friend of mine having one circa 1981. The cassettes
    were about the size of a VHS but looked like a big version of an audio
    cassette and were recordable on both sides. There was no tracking issue
    either - remember those first VHSs with the tracking control knob? The
    V2000s didn't need one.

    Regards,
    Keith.



  11. Re: Ghost or something like it?

    "Keith Wilby" wrote in message
    news:45a211c7$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

    Oh, in the UK BTW.

    Keith.



  12. Re: Ghost or something like it?

    "Keith Wilby" wrote in message
    news:45a211c7$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

    My memory on this is spot on for a change:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_2000



+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2