So which one is better ? Norton Ghost or Powerquest Drive Image?

[slicksilver]

IMO, I think Norton Ghost is better .........I just like it coz. it was the first cloning program I ever used.....Moreover Norton have always been constantly making it more and more powerful.......Norton Ghost 2003 should be a treat for all the Ghost fans.......


Raj

 

[Doh!]

Personally, I like PQ's Drive Image as the image can be saved directly to a different partition on the same drive. It's a little more gui-friendly.

 

[slicksilver]

Originally posted by: Doh!
Personally, I like PQ's Drive Image as the image can be saved directly to a different partition on the same drive. It's a little more gui-friendly.

Huh? Didn't you know that Ghost could do that? I always do that.....I've never owned two drives simultaeneously in my life

Raj

 

[bsobel]

Ghost 2003 rocks
Bill

 

[tboneuls]

ghost

 

[Yossarian]

Does Ghost still have problems with NTFS?

 

[corkyg]

If you ever have a technical question, then go with DriveImage 2002. Ghost is by Symantec and trying to connect with them is like dealing with Al Qaida. DriveImage is neater, has a better interface - but has never won the "hype" war like Ghost has.

But, both of them have a serious failing today - neither can access or work with an External Firewire HDD. You must resort to trickery and chicanery.

 

[Mem]

Another vote for PowerQuest Drive Image 2002.

 

[gentobu]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Ghost 2003 rocks
Bill

Wow I didnt know that the new version came out!

 

[kgraeme]

DriveImage supports cloning to a server. You need the enterprise version to do that with Ghost.

 

[stash]

Ghost 7.5 Enterprise...an excellent product that does it all.

 

[deran]

I had problems with a drive. I use DI ti clone the drive, but it couldn't read the drive at all. Just errors. Then I tried Ghost 7 and it can clone sector by sector. The drive partition table was dead. I think ghost is better.

 

[Doh!]

Huh? Didn't you know that Ghost could do that? I always do that.....I've never owned two drives simultaeneously in my life

Do you use NTFS? I didn't think so... Maybe the 2003 version can but I've never tried the latest. Ghost 2002 and prior (except the corporate version) cannot write directly to a ntfs partition. Ream 'em here. I guess you're still using the old FAT file system.

Guess what? Even the 2003 version can't do this. Drive Image can do this with a click of a button.

 

[slicksilver]

Originally posted by: gentobu

Originally posted by: bsobel
Ghost 2003 rocks
Bill

Wow I didnt know that the new version came out!

Should be out in a week or two from now.

 

[slicksilver]

Originally posted by: Doh!

Huh? Didn't you know that Ghost could do that? I always do that.....I've never owned two drives simultaeneously in my life

Do you use NTFS? I didn't think so... Maybe the 2003 version can but I've never tried the latest. Ghost 2002 and prior (except the corporate version) cannot write directly to a ntfs partition. Ream 'em here. I guess you're still using the old FAT file system.

Guess what? Even the 2003 version can't do this. Drive Image can do this with a click of a button.

You've never mentioned that you were talking abt NTFS. FAT is the still the standard in most drives today. and yes I'm still using the "OLD" FAT system. and Yes, I do know that Ghost cannot do the NTFS thingy

Raj

 

[robisc]

I have both Ghost 2002 and Drive Image, I have never used Drive image though, Ghost has always worked great for me, even though I have to create a FAT32 partition using Partition Magic.

DriveImage supports cloning to a server.

This I am interestd in though, how well does this work?

 

[Rob G.]

There are advantages to both. I prefer Ghost in terms of usability - I like the command line options and I find program easier to use for restoring multiple partitions at the same time, or for resizing (DI seems to make the process unnecessarily ambiguous).

HOWEVER.

Ghost has these two big problems:

It cannot save an image file on an NTFS partition.

It asks for a license code EVERY TIME you clone or restore.

The second of these is most brain-dead, idiotic, totally-damn-inane decision I've ever seen in a piece of software. It serves no purpose except to get in the way of using the program. Symantec's website basically says that if you find it annoying, you need to pay out for the corporate version. Appalling, Symantec, appalling.

 

[stash]

Don't quote me, cause I don't use it, but I believe Ghost 2003 fixes both of these problems.

 

[aviris]

drive image all the way. At work they just switched over to Altiris product (i know that isn't part of the question) and PQ Drive image was much better. I bought a home version of Ghost last year and it was money down the drain. I also have had excellent support from PQ as opposed to Symantec.

 

[WhoDeeny]

You've never mentioned that you were talking abt NTFS. FAT is the still the standard in most drives today. and yes I'm still using the "OLD" FAT system. and Yes, I do know that Ghost cannot do the NTFS thingy

Raj

Hah, not even! Esp not true for the majority of people on here outside of O.T.


*Edited for corrections...

 

[WhoDeeny]

Oh, yeah, I could give my vote (duh!): Drive Image all the way. I pretty much gave up on all of Norton products except Anti Virus when I figured out what I was doing with computers...

 

[GrumpyMan]

If the 2003 version of Ghost does not save to NTFS then I will be real disappointed. That is a major flaw, always has been.

People still use FAT 32?

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: rajkanneganti

You've never mentioned that you were talking abt NTFS. FAT is the still the standard in most drives today.

Really? Do you have stats on that? We run a help-desk here and have been collecting data on installed base and don't have numbers on that.

 

[TheWart]

i like Powerquest as a company a whole lot better than Symantec. just my $.02

 

[Rob G.]

At last!

This is from the Symantec website:

------------------------
What's new in Ghost 2003?

Ability to save image files to NTFS partitions
In previous Ghost versions, Ghost could not save an image file to a local NTFS partition because DOS does not read NTFS partitions. Norton Ghost 2003 has been written to be able to access NTFS partitions to save image files, and to restore disks or partitions from image files.

Note, though, that Ghost can save only image files to local NTFS partitions, and not other types of files. When you run Ghost with an option that creates a file such as a log file or CRC file, use an appropriate option on the Ghost command line to save that file to a different location. For instance, if you run Ghost to create an image file, to save that image file to drive D, which is an NTFS partition, and to create a log file, use a switch that directs Ghost to save the log file to location other than drive D, such as a floppy disk.
-------------------------------