CS said:
I use True Image 8.0 to write to my external Maxtor USB 2.0 HDD which
I use for backup. The program has worked flawlessly for me. I also
have not had a problem with Ghost 2003 except that it will not
reliably write to an external USB 2.0 HDD.
Art's response...
CS:
My experience has been directly counter to yours with respect to the
reliability of Ghost 2003 writing to USB 2.0 external hard drives. I've
found the program virtually problem-free and extremely reliable.I've used
Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 version to clone USB external hard drives
countless times (probably more than 100X), using a wide variety of
USB 2.0 EHD's and many different hard drives in USB external enclosures. I
routinely use a Ghost 2003 bootable floppy (on occasion a Ghost bootable CD)
to perform the cloning operation and I can't recall the last time I had any
difficulty in doing so that was attributable to the Ghost program. Whatever
problems I've run into were due to either defective USB enclosures or
defective hard drives, not the program itself. Similarly, I've not
encountered a single problem with the Ghost 2003 program in copying/moving
files from an internal hard drive to the USB 2.0 EHD.
It is true that earlier builds of Ghost 2003 did have problems cloning to
USB EHD's. Symantec released a patch to correct the problem sometime in
2003. The version you should be working with is Ghost 2003.793. If you have
an earlier build you can update it using Ghost's built-in Live Update
feature.
I've been using various versions of Symantec's Norton Ghost program for
about four years now. I find the program simple to use and effective in what
it does. For me that means cloning the contents of one drive to another
drive using the Ghost bootable floppy disk or Ghost bootable CD. I have
frequently remarked that I wish every software program I use (and will use)
was as simple to use, straightforward in design, and effective in what it
does as Ghost.
Art
John Butler said:
Yes, but Symantec arenow pushing Ghost 9 and that is a very different
story. In my experience Acronis True is a better program with very much
better technical support
John
My understanding is that the Ghost 9 program includes a separate CD of the
Ghost 2003 program, presumably because the latter program is backwards
compatible with Win9x/Me while the Ghost 9 program is not. Am I correct
about this?
My exclusive use of the Ghost 2003 program is to clone one hard drive to
another for what amounts to a near-failsafe backup program. I perform the
cloning operation using a Ghost bootable floppy disk or should the computer
not contain a floppy drive, a Ghost bootable CD. I find no need nor
advantage to creating disk images to CD/DVD media. My sole objective (and I
would suspect this is the real objective of most users) is to easily and
effectively maintain a reliable backup system. I find I can easily
accomplish this using the Ghost 2003 program. The simplicity of using the
program holds great appeal for me. Just insert the Ghost bootable floppy
disk in the computer's floppy drive (or use the bootable CD) and boot up to
the Ghost program. A half-dozen or so keyclicks to select your source and
destination disks and the cloning process begins. It's simple, reasonably
quick, and effective.
Given the way I use the Ghost 2003 program in an XP environment, is there
any advantage for me to use the Ghost 9 program in lieu of the 2003 program?
Or, for that matter, using the Acronis True Image program instead?
Art
