I used to use Norton Ghost - it was quick & easy to use. Then they added
lots of features & it became far too complex for my tastes.
Rufio:
No doubt you'll receive a variety of responses to your inquiry, each one
touting this or that imaging program. The likelihood is you probably won't
go wrong with any of the more-popular ones. For myself I prefer Symantec's
Norton
Ghost program. I've been using the various versions for nearly four years
now and I find this program simple to use, straightforward in operation, and
most importantly - effective in what does, i.e., cloning one hard disk to
another hard disk.
I'm always puzzled when I come across statements like Rufio's who
denigrate the Ghost program because of its alleged complexity. I frequently
wonder whether we're all using the same program. I have often remarked that
I wish every software program I use was as simple, straightforward, and
effective to use as Symantec's Norton Ghost program.
Let me state at the outset that I use Ghost for one and only one purpose -
to clone the contents of one hard drive to another hard drive. By making a
bit-for-bit copy (not technically precise perhaps, but correct for all
practical purposes) through the cloning process of one's working hard drive,
you have,
what seems to me, the ultimate backup system. I have used various versions
of Ghost over the years, including the present 2003 version. During that
time I estimate I've cloned a multitude of hard drives more than a thousand
times. And done so with nary a hiccup. Ghost's ease of use together with its
reasonable speed make it a joy to use.
After creating the Ghost bootable floppy disk from the Ghost program and
booting up with that disk, the user makes a few simple keyclicks and the
cloning process begins. What could be more simple or more effective?
Art
)