Switching From Norton Ghost 2003 to Norton Ghost 9.0

March 5, 2008

Since my new computer uses SATA drives, after years of faithful,

dependable service, I think I'm going to have to abandon Norton Ghost

2003 and switch to something else. I do have a valid copy of Norton

Ghost 9.0 which I've never used. Will Norton Ghost function dependable

with SATA drives? Will it work for copying a SATA drive to a PATA

drive and vice versa?

March 5, 2008

Re: Switching From Norton Ghost 2003 to Norton Ghost 9.0

On Mar 5, 11:25 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Since my new computer uses SATA drives, after years of faithful,

> dependable service, I think I'm going to have to abandon Norton Ghost

> 2003 and switch to something else. I do have a valid copy of Norton

> Ghost 9.0 which I've never used. Will Norton Ghost function dependable

> with SATA drives? Will it work for copying a SATA drive to a PATA

> drive and vice versa?

Not sure since Ghost is not a Microsoft product. Have you checked

with Symantec?

March 5, 2008

Re: Switching From Norton Ghost 2003 to Norton Ghost 9.0

Not sure why you think you need to change! Are you having a problem of some

sort using Ghost 2003. I have a PC with a SATA drive as the main drive and

have had no problems using Ghost 2003.

Where I *have* had a problem is with getting Ghost 2003 to work with an

external HDD. It is for that reason I have moved over to using Acronis.

What exactly is your problem with using Ghost 2003?

Martin

"mg" <mgkelson@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:a2676845-67c9-4985-98a2-19243e46ff6c@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> Since my new computer uses SATA drives, after years of faithful,

> dependable service, I think I'm going to have to abandon Norton Ghost

> 2003 and switch to something else. I do have a valid copy of Norton

> Ghost 9.0 which I've never used. Will Norton Ghost function dependable

> with SATA drives? Will it work for copying a SATA drive to a PATA

> drive and vice versa?

>

March 5, 2008

Re: Switching From Norton Ghost 2003 to Norton Ghost 9.0

> "mg" <mgkelson@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:a2676845-67c9-4985-98a2-19243e46ff6c@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>> Since my new computer uses SATA drives, after years of faithful,

>> dependable service, I think I'm going to have to abandon Norton Ghost

>> 2003 and switch to something else. I do have a valid copy of Norton

>> Ghost 9.0 which I've never used. Will Norton Ghost function dependable

>> with SATA drives? Will it work for copying a SATA drive to a PATA

>> drive and vice versa?

"Martin C" <martinC@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:47cecef9$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

> Not sure why you think you need to change! Are you having a problem of

> some sort using Ghost 2003. I have a PC with a SATA drive as the main

> drive and have had no problems using Ghost 2003.

>

> Where I *have* had a problem is with getting Ghost 2003 to work with an

> external HDD. It is for that reason I have moved over to using Acronis.

>

> What exactly is your problem with using Ghost 2003?

>

> Martin

mg:

Our experience with Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 (which we used for a

considerable number of years) parallels that of Martin C. with respect to

using that program with both PATA & SATA HDDs. Seems to work just fine for

basic disk-to-disk cloning even when interchanging the different types.

We used Ghost 2003 *exclusively* for disk-to-disk cloning purposes using

either the Ghost 2003 bootable floppy disk or bootable CD. We rarely, if

ever, used Ghost 2003 with the Windows GUI environment because of various

problems we ran into when using the Windows GUI interface.

Aside to Martin...

It's true that earlier versions of the Ghost 2003 program did have problems

with the disk-cloning process where a USB external HDD was involved but (at

least based on our extensive experience with that program) that was

corrected with the latest "build" 793 (which turned out to be the final

build). So I don't know if that might have been the cause of your problem

with USBEHDs in that you were working with an earlier "build". AFAIK,

Symantec no longer supports the Ghost 2003 version and that build is no

longer available.

So "mg"...

If you're basically satisfied with your Ghost 2003 program give it a try

with your current system and see if it meets your needs. BTW, we were less

than thrilled with both the Ghost versions 9 & 10 and gave up using those

versions some time ago. We haven't worked with Symantec's latest version of

Ghost.

Incidentally, our favorite disk-cloning program which we now use exclusively

is Casper 4. See http://www.fssdev.com for info on the program - there's a

trial version (somewhat crippled) that's available. Acronis True Image -

mentioned by Martin - also has a trial version available.

Anna

March 6, 2008

Re: Switching From Norton Ghost 2003 to Norton Ghost 9.0

On Mar 5, 10:05 am, "Martin C" <mart...@invalid.com> wrote:

> Not sure why you think you need to change! Are you having a problem of some

> sort using Ghost 2003. I have a PC with a SATA drive as the main drive and

> have had no problems using Ghost 2003.

>

> Where I *have* had a problem is with getting Ghost 2003 to work with an

> external HDD. It is for that reason I have moved over to using Acronis.

>

> What exactly is your problem with using Ghost 2003?

I'm going to be working on a friend's computer on Monday that requires

cloning a SATA HD to a PATA HD. It's been a couple of years ago, but

it does seem like I had trouble with this using Ghost 2003, once

before when mixing drive types. My Ghost 2003, program version

2003.775, based on Anna's comments, is out of date. So, maybe that's

my problem. I dunno. Perhaps I'll give it a try using a floppy,

anyway.

I understand Seagate has some cloning software build into their

formatting software. Maybe I'll try that or maybe I'll try the Casper

4 software that Anna recommended.

> Martin

>

> "mg" <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>

> news:a2676845-67c9-4985-98a2-19243e46ff6c@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>

> > Since my new computer uses SATA drives, after years of faithful,

> > dependable service, I think I'm going to have to abandon Norton Ghost

> > 2003 and switch to something else. I do have a valid copy of Norton

> > Ghost 9.0 which I've never used. Will Norton Ghost function dependable

> > with SATA drives? Will it work for copying a SATA drive to a PATA

> > drive and vice versa?

March 6, 2008

Re: Switching From Norton Ghost 2003 to Norton Ghost 9.0

On Mar 5, 11:03 am, "Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote:

> > "mg" <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >news:a2676845-67c9-4985-98a2-19243e46ff6c@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> >> Since my new computer uses SATA drives, after years of faithful,

> >> dependable service, I think I'm going to have to abandon Norton Ghost

> >> 2003 and switch to something else. I do have a valid copy of Norton

> >> Ghost 9.0 which I've never used. Will Norton Ghost function dependable

> >> with SATA drives? Will it work for copying a SATA drive to a PATA

> >> drive and vice versa?

> "Martin C" <mart...@invalid.com> wrote in message

>

> news:47cecef9$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

>

> > Not sure why you think you need to change! Are you having a problem of

> > some sort using Ghost 2003. I have a PC with a SATA drive as the main

> > drive and have had no problems using Ghost 2003.

>

> > Where I *have* had a problem is with getting Ghost 2003 to work with an

> > external HDD. It is for that reason I have moved over to using Acronis.

>

> > What exactly is your problem with using Ghost 2003?

>

> > Martin

>

> mg:

> Our experience with Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 (which we used for a

> considerable number of years) parallels that of Martin C. with respect to

> using that program with both PATA & SATA HDDs. Seems to work just fine for

> basic disk-to-disk cloning even when interchanging the different types.

>

> We used Ghost 2003 *exclusively* for disk-to-disk cloning purposes using

> either the Ghost 2003 bootable floppy disk or bootable CD. We rarely, if

> ever, used Ghost 2003 with the Windows GUI environment because of various

> problems we ran into when using the Windows GUI interface.

>

> Aside to Martin...

> It's true that earlier versions of the Ghost 2003 program did have problems

> with the disk-cloning process where a USB external HDD was involved but (at

> least based on our extensive experience with that program) that was

> corrected with the latest "build" 793 (which turned out to be the final

> build). So I don't know if that might have been the cause of your problem

> with USBEHDs in that you were working with an earlier "build". AFAIK,

> Symantec no longer supports the Ghost 2003 version and that build is no

> longer available.

>

> So "mg"...

> If you're basically satisfied with your Ghost 2003 program give it a try

> with your current system and see if it meets your needs. BTW, we were less

> than thrilled with both the Ghost versions 9 & 10 and gave up using those

> versions some time ago. We haven't worked with Symantec's latest version of

> Ghost.

>

> Incidentally, our favorite disk-cloning program which we now use exclusively

> is Casper 4. Seehttp://www.fssdev.comfor info on the program - there's a

> trial version (somewhat crippled) that's available. Acronis True Image -

> mentioned by Martin - also has a trial version available.

> Anna

Thanks Anna. As luck would have it, both the SATA and PATA drives are

the same size (80 Gb) so the trial version should work for me and I

have downloaded Casper 4 and I'm going to try that.

March 6, 2008

Re: Switching From Norton Ghost 2003 to Norton Ghost 9.0

On Mar 5, 9:25 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Since my new computer uses SATA drives, after years of faithful,

> dependable service, I think I'm going to have to abandon Norton Ghost

> 2003 and switch to something else. I do have a valid copy of Norton

> Ghost 9.0 which I've never used. Will Norton Ghost function dependable

> with SATA drives? Will it work for copying a SATA drive to a PATA

> drive and vice versa?

This is addressed to the Group rather than to the OP alone.

I had raised an earlier query, ""Clonezilla" (GPL software) for

cloning systems", http://groups.google.co.in/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/msg/86d6ebd2e7ad5fc0

The discussion on it veered off into a wrong direction, and I did not

receive the help I was hoping for. On the face of it, Clonezilla

appears to be a very promising tool, and I shall still appreciate

expert opinion on it.

March 6, 2008

Re: Switching From Norton Ghost 2003 to Norton Ghost 9.0

"mg" <mgkelson@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:04dfba4d-bf78-4d48-9967-394b577c7fee@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>> >> Since my new computer uses SATA drives, after years of faithful,

>> >> dependable service, I think I'm going to have to abandon Norton Ghost

>> >> 2003 and switch to something else. I do have a valid copy of Norton

>> >> Ghost 9.0 which I've never used. Will Norton Ghost function dependable

>> >> with SATA drives? Will it work for copying a SATA drive to a PATA

>> >> drive and vice versa?

>> "Martin C" <mart...@invalid.com> wrote in message

>> news:47cecef9$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

>> > Not sure why you think you need to change! Are you having a problem of

>> > some sort using Ghost 2003. I have a PC with a SATA drive as the main

>> > drive and have had no problems using Ghost 2003.

>>

>> > Where I *have* had a problem is with getting Ghost 2003 to work with an

>> > external HDD. It is for that reason I have moved over to using Acronis.

>>

>> > What exactly is your problem with using Ghost 2003?

>>

>> > Martin

> On Mar 5, 11:03 am, "Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote:

>> mg:

>> Our experience with Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 (which we used for a

>> considerable number of years) parallels that of Martin C. with respect to

>> using that program with both PATA & SATA HDDs. Seems to work just fine

>> for

>> basic disk-to-disk cloning even when interchanging the different types.

>>

>> We used Ghost 2003 *exclusively* for disk-to-disk cloning purposes using

>> either the Ghost 2003 bootable floppy disk or bootable CD. We rarely, if

>> ever, used Ghost 2003 with the Windows GUI environment because of various

>> problems we ran into when using the Windows GUI interface.

>>

>> Aside to Martin...

>> It's true that earlier versions of the Ghost 2003 program did have

>> problems

>> with the disk-cloning process where a USB external HDD was involved but

>> (at

>> least based on our extensive experience with that program) that was

>> corrected with the latest "build" 793 (which turned out to be the final

>> build). So I don't know if that might have been the cause of your problem

>> with USBEHDs in that you were working with an earlier "build". AFAIK,

>> Symantec no longer supports the Ghost 2003 version and that build is no

>> longer available.

"mg" <mgkelson@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1d147338-a06d-4ab1-9829-73c1b4f69288@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

>> So "mg"...

>> If you're basically satisfied with your Ghost 2003 program give it a try

>> with your current system and see if it meets your needs. BTW, we were

>> less

>> than thrilled with both the Ghost versions 9 & 10 and gave up using those

>> versions some time ago. We haven't worked with Symantec's latest version

>> of

>> Ghost.

>>

>> Incidentally, our favorite disk-cloning program which we now use

>> exclusively

>> is Casper 4. Seehttp://www.fssdev.comfor info on the program - there's a

>> trial version (somewhat crippled) that's available. Acronis True Image -

>> mentioned by Martin - also has a trial version available.

>> Anna

>> > "mg" <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> Thanks Anna. As luck would have it, both the SATA and PATA drives are

> the same size (80 Gb) so the trial version should work for me and I

> have downloaded Casper 4 and I'm going to try that.

mg:

First of all I think you're going to be satisfied with the Casper 4 program

should you decide to ultimately purchase it. But I want to make one thing

very clear at the outset as to what I perceive to be the significant

advantage of this program as compared with other disk-cloning programs we've

used in the past, e.g., Acronis True Image, Ghost, among others.

As I have indicated in previous posts re the Casper 4 disk-cloning program,

there is really not much difference between that program and other

disk-cloning programs when using it for the *first* time to clone the

contents of one HDD to another HDD. The time expenditure re the disk-cloning

operation is pretty much the same among all these programs during that

initial (first) disk-cloning operation. True, the Casper 4 program is

extremely easy to use even for an inexperienced user - in our experience

easier & more straightforward to use than any other disk-cloning program

we've worked with. But that is not Casper's supreme advantage to our mind,

as important as that aspect may be.

Its supreme advantage is using the program as a *routine* comprehensive

backup system involving one's day-to-day working HDD - the "source" drive.

The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning program compared

with other disk-cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis

True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create

*incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first)

disk clone. Employing what Casper calls its "SmartClone" technology the

program can create subsequent disk clones of the source HDD usually at a

fraction of the time it takes to create a "full" disk clone. This results in

a decided incentive for the user to undertake frequent complete backups of

his or her system knowing that they can create "incremental" disk clones in

a relatively short period of time. Understand that these "incremental" disk

clones are *full* disk clones - a true copy of the "source" HDD that was

cloned.

So, if a user's *only* interest is undertaking a *one-time affair* to clone

the contents of one HDD to another HDD and is not interested in using the

program as a routine comprehensive backup program, then in our view there is

no unique capability of the Casper 4 program that would recommend it over

other reliable disk-cloning programs.

Re your Ghost 2003 program...

You mentioned in another post that the program is the "775 build" and not

the latest (& final) version - build 793. I would think that your Ghost 2003

program should work with your intended disk-cloning operation involving the

SATA - PATA HDDs particularly if they're both internal HDDs. It might even

work should the destination HDD (be it PATA or SATA) be a USB external HDD.

It's worth a try.

And as you have indicated, again if this is a one-shot deal, you can use the

disk-copying function provided by the manufacturer of one of the hard drives

(the Seagate one you mentioned is presumably a copy of the Acronis program

or based on that program).

Anna

March 6, 2008

Re: Switching From Norton Ghost 2003 to Norton Ghost 9.0

On Mar 6, 7:11 am, "Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote:

> "mg" <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>

> news:04dfba4d-bf78-4d48-9967-394b577c7fee@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>

> >> >> Since my new computer uses SATA drives, after years of faithful,

> >> >> dependable service, I think I'm going to have to abandon Norton Ghost

> >> >> 2003 and switch to something else. I do have a valid copy of Norton

> >> >> Ghost 9.0 which I've never used. Will Norton Ghost function dependable

> >> >> with SATA drives? Will it work for copying a SATA drive to a PATA

> >> >> drive and vice versa?

> >> "Martin C" <mart...@invalid.com> wrote in message

> >>news:47cecef9$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

> >> > Not sure why you think you need to change! Are you having a problem of

> >> > some sort using Ghost 2003. I have a PC with a SATA drive as the main

> >> > drive and have had no problems using Ghost 2003.

>

> >> > Where I *have* had a problem is with getting Ghost 2003 to work with an

> >> > external HDD. It is for that reason I have moved over to using Acronis.

>

> >> > What exactly is your problem with using Ghost 2003?

>

> >> > Martin

> > On Mar 5, 11:03 am, "Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote:

> >> mg:

> >> Our experience with Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 (which we used for a

> >> considerable number of years) parallels that of Martin C. with respect to

> >> using that program with both PATA & SATA HDDs. Seems to work just fine

> >> for

> >> basic disk-to-disk cloning even when interchanging the different types.

>

> >> We used Ghost 2003 *exclusively* for disk-to-disk cloning purposes using

> >> either the Ghost 2003 bootable floppy disk or bootable CD. We rarely, if

> >> ever, used Ghost 2003 with the Windows GUI environment because of various

> >> problems we ran into when using the Windows GUI interface.

>

> >> Aside to Martin...

> >> It's true that earlier versions of the Ghost 2003 program did have

> >> problems

> >> with the disk-cloning process where a USB external HDD was involved but

> >> (at

> >> least based on our extensive experience with that program) that was

> >> corrected with the latest "build" 793 (which turned out to be the final

> >> build). So I don't know if that might have been the cause of your problem

> >> with USBEHDs in that you were working with an earlier "build". AFAIK,

> >> Symantec no longer supports the Ghost 2003 version and that build is no

> >> longer available.

> "mg" <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>

> news:1d147338-a06d-4ab1-9829-73c1b4f69288@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

>

> >> So "mg"...

> >> If you're basically satisfied with your Ghost 2003 program give it a try

> >> with your current system and see if it meets your needs. BTW, we were

> >> less

> >> than thrilled with both the Ghost versions 9 & 10 and gave up using those

> >> versions some time ago. We haven't worked with Symantec's latest version

> >> of

> >> Ghost.

>

> >> Incidentally, our favorite disk-cloning program which we now use

> >> exclusively

> >> is Casper 4. Seehttp://www.fssdev.comforinfo on the program - there's a

> >> trial version (somewhat crippled) that's available. Acronis True Image -

> >> mentioned by Martin - also has a trial version available.

> >> Anna

> >> > "mg" <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> > Thanks Anna. As luck would have it, both the SATA and PATA drives are

> > the same size (80 Gb) so the trial version should work for me and I

> > have downloaded Casper 4 and I'm going to try that.

>

> mg:

> First of all I think you're going to be satisfied with the Casper 4 program

> should you decide to ultimately purchase it. But I want to make one thing

> very clear at the outset as to what I perceive to be the significant

> advantage of this program as compared with other disk-cloning programs we've

> used in the past, e.g., Acronis True Image, Ghost, among others.

>

> As I have indicated in previous posts re the Casper 4 disk-cloning program,

> there is really not much difference between that program and other

> disk-cloning programs when using it for the *first* time to clone the

> contents of one HDD to another HDD. The time expenditure re the disk-cloning

> operation is pretty much the same among all these programs during that

> initial (first) disk-cloning operation. True, the Casper 4 program is

> extremely easy to use even for an inexperienced user - in our experience

> easier & more straightforward to use than any other disk-cloning program

> we've worked with. But that is not Casper's supreme advantage to our mind,

> as important as that aspect may be.

>

> Its supreme advantage is using the program as a *routine* comprehensive

> backup system involving one's day-to-day working HDD - the "source" drive.

> The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning program compared

> with other disk-cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis

> True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create

> *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first)

> disk clone. Employing what Casper calls its "SmartClone" technology the

> program can create subsequent disk clones of the source HDD usually at a

> fraction of the time it takes to create a "full" disk clone. This results in

> a decided incentive for the user to undertake frequent complete backups of

> his or her system knowing that they can create "incremental" disk clones in

> a relatively short period of time. Understand that these "incremental" disk

> clones are *full* disk clones - a true copy of the "source" HDD that was

> cloned.

>

> So, if a user's *only* interest is undertaking a *one-time affair* to clone

> the contents of one HDD to another HDD and is not interested in using the

> program as a routine comprehensive backup program, then in our view there is

> no unique capability of the Casper 4 program that would recommend it over

> other reliable disk-cloning programs.

>

> Re your Ghost 2003 program...

>

> You mentioned in another post that the program is the "775 build" and not

> the latest (& final) version - build 793. I would think that your Ghost 2003

> program should work with your intended disk-cloning operation involving the

> SATA - PATA HDDs particularly if they're both internal HDDs. It might even

> work should the destination HDD (be it PATA or SATA) be a USB external HDD.

> It's worth a try.

>

> And as you have indicated, again if this is a one-shot deal, you can use the

> disk-copying function provided by the manufacturer of one of the hard drives

> (the Seagate one you mentioned is presumably a copy of the Acronis program

> or based on that program).

> Anna

I actually do very little cloning of hard drives, although that's what

I need to do in this case. Typically I use this type of software to

create images on a second hard drive instead. Then if I need to do a

restore, I do it from a floppy. I generally create the first image

after the OS and all updates and all the software and drivers are

installed. At that point I know the system is bug and virus free. Then

I might create a second image a few months later if additional

software is added and I am confident it is virus free. All of my large

files, like music and pictures, etc. are put on the second hard drive.

I don't do incremental backups because doing so can wipe out the only

good C-Drive backup you have, if you happen to pick up a virus or a

bug, etc.

I think that incremental backups would be good for a business computer

that's not connected to the internet and doesn't get very many

software updates, etc. A computer in a doctors or dentists office, for

example, would probably be a good candidate for an incremental backup

system.

March 6, 2008

Re: Switching From Norton Ghost 2003 to Norton Ghost 9.0

Anna, I thought we had concluded that Acronis True Image 11 had similar

capability. But from what you've said below, only Casper does. ??????

You never replied to this, so I don't know.

Anna wrote:

> "mg" <mgkelson@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:04dfba4d-bf78-4d48-9967-394b577c7fee@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>>>>> Since my new computer uses SATA drives, after years of faithful,

>>>>> dependable service, I think I'm going to have to abandon Norton Ghost

>>>>> 2003 and switch to something else. I do have a valid copy of Norton

>>>>> Ghost 9.0 which I've never used. Will Norton Ghost function dependable

>>>>> with SATA drives? Will it work for copying a SATA drive to a PATA

>>>>> drive and vice versa?

>

>>> "Martin C" <mart...@invalid.com> wrote in message

>>> news:47cecef9$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

>>>> Not sure why you think you need to change! Are you having a problem of

>>>> some sort using Ghost 2003. I have a PC with a SATA drive as the main

>>>> drive and have had no problems using Ghost 2003.

>>>

>>>> Where I *have* had a problem is with getting Ghost 2003 to work with an

>>>> external HDD. It is for that reason I have moved over to using Acronis.

>>>

>>>> What exactly is your problem with using Ghost 2003?

>>>

>>>> Martin

>

>> On Mar 5, 11:03 am, "Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote:

>>> mg:

>>> Our experience with Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 (which we used for a

>>> considerable number of years) parallels that of Martin C. with respect

>>> to

>>> using that program with both PATA & SATA HDDs. Seems to work just fine

>>> for

>>> basic disk-to-disk cloning even when interchanging the different types.

>>>

>>> We used Ghost 2003 *exclusively* for disk-to-disk cloning purposes using

>>> either the Ghost 2003 bootable floppy disk or bootable CD. We rarely, if

>>> ever, used Ghost 2003 with the Windows GUI environment because of

>>> various

>>> problems we ran into when using the Windows GUI interface.

>>>

>>> Aside to Martin...

>>> It's true that earlier versions of the Ghost 2003 program did have

>>> problems

>>> with the disk-cloning process where a USB external HDD was involved but

>>> (at

>>> least based on our extensive experience with that program) that was

>>> corrected with the latest "build" 793 (which turned out to be the final

>>> build). So I don't know if that might have been the cause of your

>>> problem

>>> with USBEHDs in that you were working with an earlier "build". AFAIK,

>>> Symantec no longer supports the Ghost 2003 version and that build is no

>>> longer available.

>

> "mg" <mgkelson@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:1d147338-a06d-4ab1-9829-73c1b4f69288@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

>>> So "mg"...

>>> If you're basically satisfied with your Ghost 2003 program give it a try

>>> with your current system and see if it meets your needs. BTW, we were

>>> less

>>> than thrilled with both the Ghost versions 9 & 10 and gave up using

>>> those

>>> versions some time ago. We haven't worked with Symantec's latest version

>>> of

>>> Ghost.

>>>

>>> Incidentally, our favorite disk-cloning program which we now use

>>> exclusively

>>> is Casper 4. Seehttp://www.fssdev.comfor info on the program - there's a

>>> trial version (somewhat crippled) that's available. Acronis True Image -

>>> mentioned by Martin - also has a trial version available.

>>> Anna

>

>>>> "mg" <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> Thanks Anna. As luck would have it, both the SATA and PATA drives are

>> the same size (80 Gb) so the trial version should work for me and I

>> have downloaded Casper 4 and I'm going to try that.

>

> mg:

> First of all I think you're going to be satisfied with the Casper 4

> program

> should you decide to ultimately purchase it. But I want to make one thing

> very clear at the outset as to what I perceive to be the significant

> advantage of this program as compared with other disk-cloning programs

> we've

> used in the past, e.g., Acronis True Image, Ghost, among others.

>

> As I have indicated in previous posts re the Casper 4 disk-cloning

> program,

> there is really not much difference between that program and other

> disk-cloning programs when using it for the *first* time to clone the

> contents of one HDD to another HDD. The time expenditure re the

> disk-cloning