few questions: Ghost 9 vs Ghost 2003

[JLS]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi newsgroup,

I used Norton Ghost 2003 for 2 years and was completely satisfied with
it. Now I installed Norton Systemworks 2005 (and therefore I had to
uninstall Gost 2003) and I now have Ghost 9 installed. My questions
are:
Is a Ghost 9 image as reliable as a Ghost 2003 image was? Ghot 2003
images were 100% reliable because they were created in DOS.
Can I continue working with windows while Gost 9 is creating a drive
image (in windows)?
What happens to the files I modify during the creation of the image
file? I guess these files will not be added to the image file?

Thanks for trying to help me
Jack

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

GHOST 9 is based on PowerQuest's Drive Image, not on previous versions of
GHOST. (Symantec, the maker of GHOST, bought PowerQuest.)

I have used Drive Image at work, and it appears to be reliable. Thus, I
assume that GHOST 9 is also reliable. However, the version I use at work,
boots into DOS, does the image, then returns to windows, so it sounds like
an older version that you have. In my case, there is never a question of
"continuing working" while the image is being made. That is not possible
with the version I have experienced.

In general, I would recommend NOT touching the PC while a backup is being
made. The program probably makes a list of files to save, then marches down
the list, missing any newer ones. If necessary, let it run overnight.
Also, if the backup program has a feature to "verify" the image, run that
after the image is made. Aternatively, "mount" the image and see whether
you can extract a single file from it. GHOST 2003 and earlier had this
ability via a program called "GHOST Explorer".


"JLS" <jlstorck2@internet.lu> wrote in message
news:1123312147.786291.27440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi newsgroup,
>
> I used Norton Ghost 2003 for 2 years and was completely satisfied with
> it. Now I installed Norton Systemworks 2005 (and therefore I had to
> uninstall Gost 2003) and I now have Ghost 9 installed. My questions
> are:
> Is a Ghost 9 image as reliable as a Ghost 2003 image was? Ghot 2003
> images were 100% reliable because they were created in DOS.
> Can I continue working with windows while Gost 9 is creating a drive
> image (in windows)?
> What happens to the files I modify during the creation of the image
> file? I guess these files will not be added to the image file?
>
> Thanks for trying to help me
> Jack
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <OjKHXynmFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, rharris270[SPAM]
@hotmail.com says...
> GHOST 9 is based on PowerQuest's Drive Image, not on previous versions of
> GHOST. (Symantec, the maker of GHOST, bought PowerQuest.)

Symante didn't make Ghost 2003 either, in fact, BinaryResearch made the
Ghost products and a non-corporate version was licensed from BR for
Symnatec to distribute. BR use to sell a corp version at the same time
that Symantec did.

I still use Ghost 2003 for my Windows 2003/XP SP2 systems without any
issues.

Ghost 2003 and Symantec AV Corporate are the only Symantec products I
would install on any computer, never one of their suites.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

JLS wrote:
>
> I used Norton Ghost 2003 for 2 years and was completely satisfied with
> it. Now I installed Norton Systemworks 2005 (and therefore I had to

Try xxclone. Free.
http://www.xxclone.com/







--
http://www.bootdisk.com/