# Norton Ghost 2003



## Cvol (Jun 26, 2004)

Has anybody used this program? I would like to use it to image my primary drive to my external firewire drive. Any pitfalls? I want to keep it simple and I know Norton has a way of overinflating there products.
Suggestions?
Thanks!
WinXP Pro SP2 installed


----------



## Space Cowboy (Apr 19, 2005)

Just a small tip.

Just boot from the (Norton Ghost 2003) CD and don't install it on your computer. It will work just fine and if all you want is a backup your all set.

Good Luck
Cowboy


----------



## Tumbleweed36 (Feb 13, 2004)

Hi,

This is one of the great programs from Norton. I presently have the newest version installed on my unit and I can tell you that their new product is not nearly as good as the 2003 version that I own. When I redo my computer again, I will delete the 2005 version and put the 2003 version back on. I have had no problems installing the whole program (either one) on my computer.


----------



## Cvol (Jun 26, 2004)

Space Cowboy, I'm not sure but when you said boot from the cd, did you mean the WinXP cd? What do you do on boot up? Bypass the install routine and do....?
Thanks!


----------



## DaveBurnett (Nov 11, 2002)

The supplied CD is Bootable and you can run Ghost from it.
It is safer than installing the whole lot on windows and using the windows interface (which reboots into 'dos' anyway to to the work)


----------



## Tushman (Nov 10, 2002)

Cvol,

I've tried Ghost 2001 and 2005. I can honestly say I like Acronis True Image 7.0 much better. The boot up time using the so called recovery disk with Ghost is much longer than Acronis and the image sizes are about the same.

IMHO, there is no benefit/ advantage that Ghost 2005 has over ATI 7.0 or 8.0. However, both are good programs and it was some choice of these two programs or some freeware utility off the net; I'd choose ATI or Ghost anyday.


----------



## amlucent (Jun 8, 2005)

Ghost v 2003 is the most reliable Drive Imaging tool I have ever seen. Other programs like acronis and Powerquest Drive Image use "hot Imaging" (as in while windows is running) and it works fine about 90% of the time but Ghost 2003 and prior releases of ghost use a DOS based imaging which results in a more reliable image... so the others might be faster but at what cost? I guess the question is how much do you like your data?


----------



## warm133 (Nov 15, 2004)

Hi

Can't argue with the above, I use v2003 with complete confidence, v9 is still in it's box


----------



## markfcline (Jul 1, 2005)

I run a Ghost server with several images on the server. Created several boot CD's that contain the appropriate network drivers and IP Address of the server. When a machine comes in, new or otherwise, I plug the box into the network, boot to the CD, step through the easy to follow routine and can load a 60GB system in about 15 minutes. I love this program and I agree that the older version is better than the new ones.


----------



## Rockn (Jul 29, 2001)

Version 9 however lets you do incremental backups where version 2003 will not.

Mark, is the version you are using the Enterprise version or a standard retail version?


----------

