DIP4 or Norton Ghost?

[SleepyGuy]

This is for work. Any recommendations on either software? I think DIP4 has NTFS support (image to) and is more user friendly (GUI). I haven't used ghost since 5.1b. Thanx.

 

[IamDavid]

I prefer Drive image Pro.. Its just a little more user friendly.. I think I read somewhere Ghost does do a little better job in compressin the files...

 

[DocDoo]

Since you did not specify which version of Ghost you are comparing it too, I will assume "Ghost Enterprise Edition." They both have the same essential features, even full NTFS support (unlike Ghost 2001).

However, I have documented that DIP 4 is 2 times faster at making an image file (when compared to Ghost 2001). In a business environment that is a huge time saver!!

I say Drive Image Pro 4.0 for your needs.

 

[DocDoo]

Thought I should re-post my benchmark test on Drive Image Pro 4 Vs. Ghost 2001.

Ghost 2001
File Size = 2,404,531,072
MB Per/Sec= 140
Time Taken= 15:00
Image Size= 1,570,643,000

===

Drive Image Pro 4.0
File Size = 2,404,531,072
MB Per/Sec= 299
Time Taken= 7:41
Image Size= 1,606,811,000

===

Test was done on a "defragmented" partition of WinMe in FAT32.

 

[IamDavid]

DocDoo, what kinda HD's ya using? My MB per\sec are no where close to that speed..

 

[DocDoo]

It was an IBM GXP-75 30GB with an Ultra ATA-100 controller.

Just to give you a reference point, here are the same program benchmark exept using an IBM GXP-14 (ATA-33) running Windows 2000 Pro (NTFS).

Ghost 2001
File Size = 1,351,438,336
MB Per/Sec= 86
Time Taken= 12:44
Image Size= 645,789,816

==

Drive Image Pro 4.0
File Size = 1,351,438,336
MB Per/Sec= 183
Time Taken= 7:00
Image Size= 654,311,424

BTW: My system specs are in my profile

PS. As you can see, the bottom line shows that D.I.P is soo much faster (relatively speaking).

 

[nEoTeChMaN]

That's easy!

Drive Image Pro 4 rulez! It is more stable and faster than Ghost 2001.

I use it to backup my server stuff.

 

[FireCrotchBurns]

dang, um yeah, if those stats are anywhere near the truth, I would say there is no contest. Norton should stick with virus protection, they ARE the best at that!