Any better Hard disk imaging software than Norton Ghost2003??

J

Joe M

Does anyone knows of any other better Operating System cloning/imaging
software than Symantec Norton Ghost2003? In the past there was Imagequest,
but now they're bought by Symantec too.
I need another imaging software because on some computers ghost doesn't seem
to work because of the hardware components. Maybe having another imaging
software will solve the problem.
 
B

Bob Day

Joe M said:
Does anyone knows of any other better Operating System cloning/imaging
software than Symantec Norton Ghost2003? In the past there was Imagequest,
but now they're bought by Symantec too.
I need another imaging software because on some computers ghost doesn't seem
to work because of the hardware components. Maybe having another imaging
software will solve the problem.

If you didn't, try disconnecting all of your USB devices
before doing the Ghost.

-- Bob Day
 
N

Natéag

Personally, I like Drive Image 7 (and even versions 5 and 3003), created
by Powerquest - nos owned by Symantec !

Always thought they were far better than Ghost. Now that they are
part of Symantec, I am sure mos Ghost users will agree.
 
M

Michael Cecil

Personally, I like Drive Image 7 (and even versions 5 and 3003), created
by Powerquest - nos owned by Symantec !

Always thought they were far better than Ghost. Now that they are
part of Symantec, I am sure mos Ghost users will agree.

Yes, we agree that they are part of Symantec. However Ghost still rules.
 
A

Art

Joe M said:
Does anyone knows of any other better Operating System cloning/imaging
software than Symantec Norton Ghost2003? In the past there was Imagequest,
but now they're bought by Symantec too.
I need another imaging software because on some computers ghost doesn't seem
to work because of the hardware components. Maybe having another imaging
software will solve the problem.

Hi:
I am constantly puzzled by the continuous negative comments (and frequent
misinformation!) I come across on the various newsgroups that deprecate
Symantec's Norton Ghost program. My experience with that program has been,
and continues to be, completely counter to the negative views expressed by
so many posters. I have often remarked that I wish every software program I
use was as simple, straightforward, and effective as the 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. By making a
bit-for-bit copy (not technically precise perhaps, but correct for all
practical purposes) 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 various hard drives more than a thousand times. And done so with nary
a hiccup. Ghost's ease of use together with reasonable speed make it a joy
to use.



I'm aware that many experienced and competent users who contribute to this
newsgroup prefer different software cloning programs, e.g., Acronis True
Image, BING, and Casper XP among them, as well as cloning utilities provided
by the hard drive manufacturers. No doubt these programs work equally as
well as Ghost, however, since my experience has been primarily with the
Ghost program, I will confine my remarks to that program.



As I've previously indicated, I use Ghost exclusively to clone one hard
drive to another. I rarely clone individual partitions, although there's no
reason why you cannot do so. I'm not a particular fan of creating hard drive
partitions since I frequently find them awkward to use; they seem to create
more problems than they solve; and they give the user a false sense of
security. In nearly all cases I set up my computers with a single partition
per hard drive. My computers are usually configured with two removable hard
drives in their mobile racks. I have found this arrangement just about the
best backup system for the average home user and even small business owner.
There are other advantages in having two removable hard drives on one's
computer but the most significant one is providing a near fail-safe backup
system. The speed, flexibility and peace of mind you get with this
arrangement far outweighs the relatively small additional cost of equipping
one's desktop computer with this hardware configuration. Note that the
removable hard drive mobile racks I am referring to are designed to be
installed in desktop computers and not laptop or notebook computers. The
size, weight, and design considerations of laptops/notebooks do not allow
for this hardware configuration.



I use the Ghost bootable floppy, rather than Ghost's Window's interface when
I clone the drives. I find the floppy easier and more straightforward to
use, and the portability aspect of the floppy is an important consideration
for me. The floppy is created through the Ghost Utilities program. It is
simple to use and effective in its operation.



Cloning one's hard drive will not solve any problems the user may be
experiencing with that drive. I mention this because I sometimes come across
users who have run into problems with the Ghost cloning process when I later
learn that the source disk was defective in one way or another. If you clone
garbage, garbage is what you'll get. Before cloning a hard drive you must
ensure that the drive is free of physical/system defects and virus-free.



If you do install the Ghost 2003 program on your computer, check the
version. The latest version as of this date is 2003.793. If necessary, use
Ghost's built-in LiveUpdate feature to update to the latest version. BTW,
there had been a problem with Ghost cloning to an USB 2.0 external hard
drive, however, Symantec has released two revised files that overcome this
problem. You can download and install the two revised files from:

http://service1.symantec.com/support/ghost.nsf/docid/2003011609192825?Open&src=w.
(I'm not absolutely certain these two revised files are actually needed if
you have the latest 2003.793 version.)



Art
 
M

MGGP

I absolutely agree. Ghost is a simple tool that does
exactly what I want and it has NEVER failed me. It is an
invaluable tool ! More programs should be like Ghost -
limited in scope, simple, no manual required, dependable !
 
J

Joe M

Hi Art,
When ghost works, it really works well. But when it fails, you'll
really need another piece of cloning software.
I have use Ghost 2003 to clone many types of Computer systems with different
motherboards (about 100 different motherboards).
I've have discovered it to normally fail on the ones with an ASUS
motherboard. The Ghost boot disk will boot to the point of where it will
launch GHOST.EXE, but it is at this point that it stopped launching the GUI
..
What is the problem, and why often on certain Asus motherboard( the biggest
motherboard maker in the world)??
Maybe you have use ghost on the same make of computer for all these years.
Yeah I know when it works it works very well.

Regards
 
P

Philip Herlihy

You might like to see the similar thread:
Re: Backup: ASR or Ghost - which is better (to USB external drive)?
 
A

Art

Hi Joe:

I find your comments very puzzling. As I mentioned in my previous posting,
over the past three years or so that I've used Ghost to clone hard drives,
I've cloned these drives on a multitude of different systems. Interestingly
enough, the most common motherboard in these systems was an ASUS. I've
probably cloned drives in systems with a variety of ASUS motherboards at
least a couple of hundred times. And I can't remember the last time I had a
problem doing so. I've discussed this with a number of persons who also have
been using Ghost over the years and their experiences parallel mine.

I don't dispute the fact that you have experienced problems using the Ghost
program with ASUS motherboards. If you've experienced that problem, then
you've experienced that problem. I can only relate my positive experiences
with the Ghost program along with the similarly positive experiences of
others using the program - computer users who I know to be competent users.

Art
 
D

dmac

a lot of problems had arisen from sata drives being used w/o command line
switch, and symantec themselves have said (in dec 2003) they will not offer
a way to directly use gui w/o a command line switch. I have found -noide to
work best in the command line. I asked symantec why they did not plan on
fixing this since sata is becoming so popular and got no response.

--
-----------------------
dmac
(e-mail address removed)
remove 1 to mail
Ati 9800pro 256
P4 2.8 @ 3.1 1gb ddr466
twin seagate 120 sata raid 0
 
A

Art

Hi:
I'm aware that issues have arisen with respect to using Ghost with Serial
ATA drives. I've had no direct experience in this area since up to now all
my experience with using the Ghost cloning program has been with PATA
drives. In a review of imaging programs related to SATA drives, an article
in the May, 2004 issue of Maximum PC (p. 68) indicated that they did have
problems using Ghost with SATA drives. They stated that they were informed
by Symantec that the latest version of Ghost avoids this problem. I queried
Symantec about this and here is their response of 4-27-04:

"Thank you for contacting Symantec Online Technical Support.

Ghost works fine with SATA drive if you first run LiveUpdate after the
initial installation. Even prior to the update there were switches that
could be used to change the drive detection method that the BIOS feeds Ghost
about SATA drives that would resolve the issue.

SATA drives were not mainstream when Ghost was created. SATA drives have
not really become mainstream until around 6-8 months ago. Symantec creates
updates for Ghost to gain compatibility with new hardware configurations as
they become available to the public. The Maximum PC (magazine) was about 3
months late posting that article.

Please take note: Ghost is not supported in a RAID environment. If you are
using SATA drives through a RAID controller it very well may have adverse
effects."

For the moment, I'll take them at their word since I've had no experience
cloning SATA drives.

Art

dmac said:
a lot of problems had arisen from sata drives being used w/o command line
switch, and symantec themselves have said (in dec 2003) they will not offer
a way to directly use gui w/o a command line switch. I have found -noide to
work best in the command line. I asked symantec why they did not plan on
fixing this since sata is becoming so popular and got no response.

--
-----------------------
dmac
(e-mail address removed)
remove 1 to mail
Ati 9800pro 256
P4 2.8 @ 3.1 1gb ddr466
twin seagate 120 sata raid 0




had
to use and effective in its operation.
 
D

dmac

I had no luck even with the update with single sata, but I have heard some
say it works and some say no.
I just added the switch to boot disk to always make sure it works, but now
on raid setup its really needed.
I really am quite pleased with ghost, but have never tried anything other
than the powerquest software that came with my partition magic. I tried that
once with BAD luck (I am sure I did something wrong) and just stayed with
ghost.


--
-----------------------
dmac
(e-mail address removed)
remove 1 to mail
Ati 9800pro 256
P4 2.8 @ 3.1 1gb ddr466
twin seagate 120 sata raid 0
 
Z

zenophile

Does anyone knows of any other better Operating System cloning/imaging
software than Symantec Norton Ghost2003? In the past there was Imagequest,
but now they're bought by Symantec too.
I need another imaging software because on some computers ghost doesn't seem
to work because of the hardware components. Maybe having another imaging
software will solve the problem.

They're all pretty bad. Error correction features in programs
such as quickpar and WinRar have been around for a while but
none of these imaging programs seem to include them - which I
find really annoying. I consider it a pretty essential feature
as many people run the images from CDs or DVDs and optical media
isn't exactly known for never having hardware errors.

PS: I'd love it if someone contradicts me and tells us of a disk
imaging program that does have error correction.
 
G

GF

I have for a long time considered PowerQuest DriveImage much
easier to use - and surely as good.

PowerQuest has been bought by Norton and their latest
Ghost version (9) actually is DriveImage 7 Pro with new splash
screen.

I did like DriveImage 5 and 2002. Incremental backups of the
system disk be scheduled with NortonGhost 9 without any need
to reboot.

">
 
G

Guest

You could try Acronis True Image - I have had no problems with it - saved my
bacon several times!
 
G

Guest

The latest release og Ghost manages drives / configurations much easier than
any previous version: plus has the advantage of being 'bootable' right off
the installation CD.

I've not used a better product in 15 years!
 
S

Sunny

BAR said:
The latest release og Ghost manages drives / configurations much easier than
any previous version: plus has the advantage of being 'bootable' right off
the installation CD.

I've not used a better product in 15 years!

It's got a few wrinkles, but in general I agree. I have it set to back
up all our home systems to our Samba file server early in the wee hours
- daily incrementals plus a weekly full backup. I haven't gotten around
to having it email me if something goes wrong, but it appears to have
that capability.

The bootable CD is nice - you had to roll your own in previous versions
of Drive Image - but the networking is a bit flaky, especially if your
windows network is not using the WORKGROUP default. It appears to get
very confused if you attempt to browse the network or map a drive
immediately after booting, but if you just let it sit for 5 minutes it
seems to acclimatise.

I had some problems getting it to work with Samba. Symantec were not
helpful, they told me Samba is not supported and won't work. Turns out
you just have to configure Samba to override the file permissions Drive
Image sets for itself, otherwise it claims the image file you just
browsed to doesn't exist. I fed my results back to Symantec and
suggested they update their knowledge base.

One feature I miss is the ability to image drives when windows is *not*
running. This was available (required) in previous versions, and was
useful for imaging windows installations that won't boot. You could then
restore files from the image, and/or have the ability to start over in
the event attempts to repair windows made things worse. Previous
versions could also image linux-only systems, while the latest version
requires you dual-boot windows if you want to image linux partitions.

BTW, when I say 'previous versions', I mean of Drive Image - which I
have used since v2. As has been pointed out, Ghost 9 is Drive Image 7
Pro with a Symantec splash screen. I've never used Ghost.

Sunny
 
L

Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]

Rob said:
You could try Acronis True Image - I have had no problems with it -
saved my bacon several times!

Agreed. I was skeptical about it, but it is very good stuff.
 
U

Uncle John

Norton Ghost 2005 is an update of Drive image 7 [Symantec bought Powerquest
in 2003] and has no new features since 2002. It requires Microsoft
..netFramework to be installed and has problems with Windows XP Pro SP2.
Acronis True Image has all the features of NG 2003 is up-to-date with SP2
and very reliable.
I was a fan of Drive Image but I think that Symantec have let it decay, just
rebranding it to Ghost and now I use Acronis.
"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top