Drive Image or Ghost

After 20 hours of trying to install and run Ghost 2002, and spending much time in forums trying to get help, my computer totally crashed and I had to reinstall everthing from scratch. Lost mucho data. Trying PowerQust this weekend.

Bill

There is a .msi file in the Ghost folder that should be an install. I have read of problems with using it. The 2001 version had Setup.EXE files in all of the folders but the 2002 doesn't.

Ive used both and now that im using WinXP only I prefer Drive Image. Check out the August edition of MaximumPC... has a great article on using Drive Image with XP. :D

A vote for "Drive Image" I have used the early versions of "Ghost" and "Drive Image" and I now just use the latter, I just find "Drive Image" easier and quicker to use.
Also to run "Ghost" does the partition that is to be imaged to have to be a FAT partition, where as with "Drive Image" it can be FAT or NTFS, I may be wrong on the last point though or can anyone confirm this.

Hi Orcades,

Quote:

---

...to run "Ghost" does the partition that is to be imaged to have to be a FAT partition...

---

If Ghost is writing an image to a mapped network drive, it doesn't care if it's FAT or NTFS. However, if writing to a local drive, then yes, it must be a FAT-based partition or drive.

Happy Computing!

Limerick
https://discussions.virtualdr.com/

Thanks for the reply at least that's clarified the matter, I was meaning a local drive, all my partitions are NTFS, so that rules out "Ghost" I suppose.