go back versus norton ghost

  colcol 18:38 05 Feb 2003

I have norton system works 2003 which includes go back 3 and norton ghost 2003. I have installed go back and used it twice, successfully, in last week.
I have tried without success to install norton ghost by saving the image on the hard disk and on a recordable cd. nether worked for me. I suspect that I need to create a new partition on the hard disk but only have partition magic 6.0 which wont work with XP.
my question is since I have go back working well, is there anything to be gained by installing norton ghost?

  jimv7 19:13 05 Feb 2003

Ghost makes an image of your hard drive, which you can write to a partition or cdr, spanning more than 1 disc if needed by cdr.

It cannot create an image of 'C' drive to its self.

I am useing ghost for its simplicity.

  flecc 20:03 05 Feb 2003

These are very different animals and in essence it's active restore versus pasive restore.

Active restore such as GoBack or System Restore continuously drains resources but can recover anything on a very short term basis, say 7 days or so.

Passive restore such as Drive Image or Ghost don't use resources during your computing but can only restore the snapshot in time that you took when you use them. Anything done since is lost.

There used to be an excellent combination approach. There was a utility called Second Chance which worked like GoBack but could be activated on a per drive basis.

This meant that the operating system could be protected by passive restore like Ghost with no ill effect on performance, while Second Chance could be active only on the data partition giving full protection to that without a big performance hit. Sadly Second Chance is no more, and GoBack can't normally be run like that.

However, it IS possible, there is a tweak that lets GoBack work like Second Chance, so let me know if you want that information.

  colcol 10:21 06 Feb 2003

flecc = tks. you have answered my question. although I have noted how my processes have slowed down and I know that resources are being used by go back, in view of the the protection they give me I am prepared to carry on using them. my norton virus scanner also slows down various applications but again I reckon this is a price worth paying providing it is giving me real protection.
please let me have details of the tweak that lets go back work like second chance - although if it is too risky or complicated I will probably stay with what I have.

  Andsome 11:26 06 Feb 2003

I used Go back on my old PC for some time with no bother. However one day everything fouled up. The local shop reinstalled Windows, as I could not even get this to happen for me. He said that he had found that many files were showing as fat42 instead of fat 32, and suggested that Go back could possibly have caused this, as he had come accross the same problem with two other Go back users. My new machine runs XP home, and I prefer to stick with OS system restore.

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

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iPhone X review

How to find a font: Discover the name of a typeface with these apps

The best iPhone for 2017

Les meilleurs logiciels de montage vidéo gratuits (en 2017)