Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (
More info?)
Art - wasn't me trying to do the clone. But as for the Ghost issue - I once
downloaded a trial version of the basic edition of ghost. But another time I
tried to find a download from Symantec, all I could get was their enterprise
version - there was no trial version of the basic package. That's what the
problem was. i wasn't surprised by the complexity, I was more surprised that
there was no trial version of the basic edition - the one time I used it, it
was pretty good.
I do disk copies so rarely, that I won't buy the package - there will be a
new O/S & the package won't work, before I need to use it again.
Ah - how I miss XCOPY
😱)
"Art" <noonehere@longone.net> wrote in message
news:OW6T0TjgEHA.3964@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "Rufio" <Bran_britain@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news
😱NqTc.41131$Oi.9723@fed1read04...
> > > I need to clone the hard disk containing my XP OS and applications. I
> know
> > > that there are now several 'cloning' packages available. Can anyone
> advise
> > > on the pros and cons of each?
> > >
> > > Many thanks.
> > >
> > >
>
> > "Andrew Chalk" <achalk@XXXmagnacartasoftware.com> wrote in message
> > news:O5BPKRhgEHA.1048@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > I used to use Norton Ghost - it was quick & easy to use. Then they added
> > lots of features & it became far too complex for my tastes.
>
> Rufio:
> No doubt you'll receive a variety of responses to your inquiry, each one
> touting this or that imaging program. The likelihood is you probably won't
> go wrong with any of the more-popular ones. For myself I prefer Symantec's
> Norton
> Ghost program. I've been using the various versions for nearly four years
> now and I find this program simple to use, straightforward in operation,
and
> most importantly - effective in what does, i.e., cloning one hard disk to
> another hard disk.
>
> I'm always puzzled when I come across statements like Rufio's who
> denigrate the Ghost program because of its alleged complexity. I
frequently
> wonder whether we're all using the same program. I have often remarked
that
> I wish every software program I use was as simple, straightforward, and
> effective to use as Symantec's Norton Ghost program.
>
> Let me state at the outset that I use Ghost for one and only one purpose -
> to clone the contents of one hard drive to another hard drive. By making a
> bit-for-bit copy (not technically precise perhaps, but correct for all
> practical purposes) through the cloning process of one's working hard
drive,
> you have,
> what seems to me, the ultimate backup system. I have used various versions
> of Ghost over the years, including the present 2003 version. During that
> time I estimate I've cloned a multitude of hard drives more than a
thousand
> times. And done so with nary a hiccup. Ghost's ease of use together with
its
> reasonable speed make it a joy to use.
>
> After creating the Ghost bootable floppy disk from the Ghost program and
> booting up with that disk, the user makes a few simple keyclicks and the
> cloning process begins. What could be more simple or more effective?
>
> Art
>
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram