Differences in Norton Ghost

[bucmeister]

Does anyone know what differences there are between the different versions of Norton Ghost. Specifically, the version that is included in the System Works Pro 2004 versus the stand alone Ghost 9.0 and lately I even saw a Ghost Pro. There is bound to be differences since the stand alone costs almost the same as the entire System Works Pro. Thanks for your input.

[EMC]

All versions of Ghost were essentailly the same. Some positive and useful modifications were made in Ghost 2003. I think the improvements in Ghost stopped when Symantec decided to buy out PowerQuest.

PowerQuest Drive Image has been the premium imaging software through version 2002 (6). Version 7, for some unfathomable reason, was issued with major bugs. These were later addressed in 7.01 and 7.03. Version 7 remains superior to Ghost 2003, but is a disk hog as it requires the installation of MS .NET Framework (70 MB here) that even MS seems to have abandoned.

A contender is Acronis true Image with a regrettable and expensive upgrade policy. Nice program with poor marketing smarts.

Look to the forthcoming Symantec meld of Drive Image and Ghost. Browse the PCWORLD site for some info on this offering. PowerQuest and Symantec have always had reasonable upgrade policies. This will probably be the best imaging software available.

[EMC]

Originally Posted by EMC ...Look to the forthcoming Symantec meld of Drive Image and Ghost. Browse the PCWORLD site for some info on this offering. PowerQuest and Symantec have always had reasonable upgrade policies. This will probably be the best imaging software available.

Having read more on the "new" Symantec forthcoming merge of Drive image 7 and Ghost, I would recommend that you save your money and buy Acronis True Image 8. Keep checking eBay for it by its full name. It has been listed there at $10 off the Acronis site price.

[bucmeister]

So, even given their "poor marketing smarts" and "regrettable and expensive upgrade policy" you still feel their product would be the best buy.

[TheJackal]

Originally Posted by EMC MS .NET Framework (70 MB here) that even MS seems to have abandoned.

Id just like to point out that MS has definately not abandoned the .net Frame Work. Currently Visual Studio.net 2003 makes use of the Framework, and Visual Studio 2005 will certainly make use of the .net Framework as well... In fact you can download the MS .net Framework v2.0 BETA from the MSDN website for free.

[EMC]

Originally Posted by TheJackal Id just like to point out that MS has definately not abandoned the .net Frame Work. Currently Visual Studio.net 2003 makes use of the Framework, and Visual Studio 2005 will certainly make use of the .net Framework as well... In fact you can download the MS .net Framework v2.0 BETA from the MSDN website for free.

Thank you for the info. I did not download the previous update for .NET and, as a user of Studio (recently upgraded from a MS promotional), I have not felt any compulsion or seen any advantage to downloading the latest upgrade of .NET. Nothing that Microsoft has produced incorporates .NET in any way and I have a feeling it will be an orphan as so many other Microsoft offerings have in the past. Do you remember their integrated office with MS Sound, MS Printing System (they sold it for $150 per copy), Quick C, etc..

[EMC]

Originally Posted by bucmeister So, even given their "poor marketing smarts" and "regrettable and expensive upgrade policy" you still feel their product would be the best buy.

If you do not already own version 7, it is the best buy. Beautifully designed program!!!