Norton Ghost 2002 or 2003?

  TommyRed 09:36 15 Apr 03

I've decided I want to use Norton Ghost to replicate my system in case of failure. 2003 retails at about £39.99 but I've also seen 2002 for £23.00. My OS is 98SE, so what would 2003 give me that warrants an extra £17.00? Or could someone suggest an alternative.

  Lú-tzé 10:38 15 Apr 03

Stick with Ghost 2002 and have a look here for an excellent userguide - click here

Best thing to do is have two physical hard disk drives, or failing that a partition for the ghost images.

It is also possible with NG 2002 to span your images over a number of CD-Rs.
I hope that is of some use to you - I don't see an advantage in Ghost 2003.

  anchor 13:06 15 Apr 03

I read this on the user-guide site given above:

"The main differences between v2003 and earlier versions is that now you don't need to create a boot floppy in order to CREATE the image (only to RESTORE it, if your system won't boot), and you can now write image files to NTFS partitions, even though DOS doesn't support NTFS, and Ghost works from DOS".

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Hands-on: Acer Predator Triton 700 review

D&AD Awards 2017: see the best design, advertising, illustration, animation and VR of the past year

How to lose weight with an Apple Watch