Which is better Powerquest Drive Image 2002 or Norton Ghost? Why? Please only experienced users respond.
Thanks.
Printable View
Which is better Powerquest Drive Image 2002 or Norton Ghost? Why? Please only experienced users respond.
Thanks.
I have used both but prefer Ghost. Simply it is very User Friendly and runs from a DOS disk too. It's as simple as copy from to copy to. I've used it for professional and private applications and have never had a problem.
my vote is for ghost also ...
driveimage is better if you like gui but that sometimes causes problems ....
ghost is (like tyberius said) ... a strait foward shooting match
Make that three votes for Ghost!
I've tried many of the imaging software packages, but always come back to Ghost. It is certainly the most mature of the imaging applications available and has stood up to every test I could throw at it.
Afraid then it's 3 to one so far, but then I always have to be different.
I have always found Drive Image to be that little bit quicker, and they say time is money!
Another vote for Drive Image. Tried out Ghost at one time and I think Drive Image is easier to use. And fast. :)
I won’t comment on which is best as I have only used Ghost. It is easy to use and reliable. It is pretty quick if you use fast compression rather than high.
My comparison would be price if you are planning to buy one. Eagle has the 2002 Norton System Works Pro CD for $12. It is the regular retail CD without the box and comes with the full year’s updates to the Norton AV. You get Ghost, Norton Utilities, Cleansweep, WinFax, Norton AV and GoBack. http://store.yahoo.com/saveateaglest...norsyspro.html
only program in that set that i would even load on my machine is ghost ... which you dont need to load on your machine
;)
I’ve been using Cleansweep since it was a Quarterdeck program. If you leave csinject checked in the msconfig/startup and turn fast analysis off it does a good job of monitoring installs and removing them with most registry entries. I probably keep one program in 10 I install and it does a nice job of keeping things tidy. It is especially good for downloaded programs that might not have a good uninstall utility.
Cleansweep does a better job than the Windows uninstaller of checking for shared files, so you don’t screw up other programs with uninstalls. It makes a compressed backup of uninstalls so they can be restored with all of their settings and links. With a Windows uninstall the program is just gone, and you are in for some hassles if the uninstall screws something up.
Cleansweep is also great for tracking down software conflicts. Just start uninstalling things until you have no more conflicts. It is easy to restore the innocent programs and look for updates or a replacement for the offending program. You can also use it to transport programs with all of their registry links to other partitions or even other computers as long as you monitored the install with csinject active and fast analysis off.
They left most of the cleanup stuff off in the 2002 version because of problems with XP. I never used them anyway and there are freeware utilities that do just as good a job. Cleansweep is now back to its primary job of uninstaller and it is a good one. It is one of those programs I wouldn’t want to be without.
WinFax isn’t as good as WinFax Pro, but better a fax program than comes with modems. It is also a lot better than Windows fax and WinFax starter that comes with Outlook. It is nice to have if you don’t have a good fax program.
Norton AV is trouble free. Norton updates their definitions real time rather than on a schedule. It isn’t a resource hog and you never know it is there unless it intercepts a virus. It seems aggressive and it has never let anything on my computer.
Norton Utilities isn’t bad if you keep everything inactive and just use stuff when you want it. I could easily do without it as it has never really solved a problem for me, but there is information there sometimes that is useful.
If you really stay on top of your Ghost image I agree that GoBack is redundant to some degree. It is handy for quick restores though. I don’t know how it compares to the built in reversion with newer operating systems, but I’m still using Win98SE and it is a great way to go back to where you were recently without losing too much stuff. I don’t make a Ghost every day but GoBack is always updating.
Bottom line - You can’t buy Drive Image for $12 anywhere I know of.
12 bucks for ghost is a great deal!!
As LONG as you don't install all the other rubbish that comes with it :pQuote:
Originally posted by Running_on_Wheel
12 bucks for ghost is a great deal!!
amenQuote:
Originally posted by putasolutions
As LONG as you don't install all the other rubbish that comes with it :p
:)Quote:
only program in that set that i would even load on my machine is ghost ... which you dont need to load on your machine
With Ghost 2002 seems like you've got to install it to register it or it won't work. Of course you can then uninstall it. With earlier versions all you had to do was pull ghostpe.exe off the CD.
Putasolutions, you mentioned that Ghost is best as long as you don't install the rest of the rubbish.
I just ordered Ghost to backup the drives on my work computer because I need to run partition magic, but I don't want all the systemworks, antivirus, utilities, etc. I haven't received the CD in the mail yet, but when I do...it's possible to JUST install Ghost and leave off the rest of the stuff? Cause that's all I need anyway.
Instructions on if and how I could do this would be most appreciated!!
Thanks,
Danni
cloudswirls, when you put the CD in, the first menu screen you get gives the choice of "browse CD". Just have a look around for Ghost and install it. Everything on that CD can be installed separately or all at once.
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,
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.Quote:
...to run "Ghost" does the partition that is to be imaged to have to be a FAT partition...
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.