Radified Community Forums

Radified Community Forums › Rad Community Technical Discussion Boards (Computer Hardware + PC Software) › Norton Ghost 2003, Ghost v8.x + Ghost Solution Suite (GSS) Discussion Board › Ghost 2003

(Moderators: Rad, Christer, NightOwl, Pleonasm, MrMagoo, El_Pescador)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2

Ghost 2003 (Read 13971 times)

ajcstr

N00b
Offline

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 7

Re: Ghost 2003
Reply #15 - Aug 4^th, 2006 at 4:21pm

Using ghost 2003 to image my laptop (24 GB on a 30 GB HD) to a USB external drive takes OVER 7 hours. Just won't work when I click only USB 2.0 drivers - I get the error that no drive letter is being assigned. 1.1 drivers work like a champ (just takes a day).

My question is - I also have Ghost 10.0 and Norton Save & Restore. Would I have better luck with one of these since 2003 is a little long in the tooth?

IP Logged

NightOwl

Radministrator

Offline

"I tought I saw a puddy
tat..."

Posts: 5826
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound--USA

Re: Ghost 2003
Reply #16 - Aug 4^th, 2006 at 5:40pm

ajcstr

Quote:

won't work when I click only USB 2.0 drivers - I get the error that no drive letter is being assigned. 1.1 drivers work like a champ

Ghost 10.0 and Norton Save & Restore will still have to run at USB 1.x speed if that's the only USB controller you have--I would not expect much better results!

You can run a test--this is what I did--I saved a Ghost image to my USB HDD in DOS--recorded the speed and time. Then when booted back to WinXP, I copied the Ghost image from the USB HDD to one of the internal HDD's, and then copied it back to the USB HDD--noting the time it took for each operation.

On my system, Ghost took only about 1 minute longer to create and save the image to USB as it takes in Windows to simply transfer the same amount of data to and from the USB HDD to an internal HDD--the limiting factor must be the speed of the USB *pipeline*!

____________________________________________________________________________________________

No question is stupid ... but, possibly the answers are Wink