Drive Image or Ghost - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21

Thread: Drive Image or Ghost

  1. August 15th, 2002, 09:00 AM #16
    Bill in SD, CA's Avatar
    Bill in SD, CA
    Bill in SD, CA is offline Virtual Intern
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Lower left hand corner of the U.S. of A.
    Posts
    199
    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
    If your problem was solved don't leave us hanging - POST BACK!!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  2. August 16th, 2002, 01:41 AM #17
    slipe
    slipe is offline Virtual PC Surgeon!
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Tampa Bay
    Posts
    1,404
    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.
    Last edited by slipe; August 16th, 2002 at 01:46 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  3. August 16th, 2002, 08:41 AM #18
    sting
    sting is offline Imagine That
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    862
    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.
    "ONWARD THROUGH THE FOG"

    "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - - Bill Gates, 1981

    AMAZING TECHS
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  4. August 16th, 2002, 05:45 PM #19
    Orcades
    Orcades is offline Virtual Intern
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Orkney Isles, Scotland
    Posts
    123

    Drive Image

    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.
    Gigabyte K8NXP-9, Athlon 64 3700, 2GIG PC4000 Ram, Radeon X800XL, 3 internal and 2 external hard drives, 1 X Plextor 716SA, 2 x LG DVD RW/RAM, Windows XP Pro, Enermax Noisetaker 600W psu, Chenbro Gaming Bomb case.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  6. August 16th, 2002, 10:04 PM #20
    Limerick's Avatar
    Limerick
    Limerick is offline Virtual PC Specialist!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Armadillo Country
    Posts
    3,996
    Hi Orcades,

    ...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
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  7. August 16th, 2002, 10:18 PM #21
    Orcades
    Orcades is offline Virtual Intern
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Orkney Isles, Scotland
    Posts
    123
    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.
    Gigabyte K8NXP-9, Athlon 64 3700, 2GIG PC4000 Ram, Radeon X800XL, 3 internal and 2 external hard drives, 1 X Plextor 716SA, 2 x LG DVD RW/RAM, Windows XP Pro, Enermax Noisetaker 600W psu, Chenbro Gaming Bomb case.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Forum Rules