drive image 5 or Ghost 2002

[Mantra]

who is the more secure ?

and who does compress more ?

[paula]

Moin, Moin !

I don't remember exactly, but the image-size is about the same, if you select the highest compression-grade in PQ DI5 and in GHOST 2002.

In my oppinion DI has the nicer GUI, but GHOST has much more features (i.e. in GHOST you can exclude folders or files for image-building and so on).

Both are secure.

I hope I could help you. Please excuse my bad English.

Gott ist tot (Nietzsche).
Nietzsche ist tot (Gott).

[Mantra]

thanks

[Allmighty]

DI is mor secure, with ghost you often have bad images, that cant be restored

[svgusta]

have used ghost 7.5 for a year now, on some big disks it take some time to initialize , but have to this day had no probs with it.

I use only fat and fat32 partitions...
and I never use compression (that is just in case, on valuable data)

[adelies]

Honestly I perfer PQDI series.

PQDI have two levels of data verification: when making the image file and after the image have maken.

But Ghost is more popular than PQDI.

[Gilbert]

Pokopiko,

You often mention you don't like packet writers. You also seem to like Stomp sw RecordNow. Would you recommend their DLA sw for packet writing?

--
Gilbert

[paula]

Moin, Moin !

I had the same problem with GHOST (unable to restore an image) one single time.

In my opinion then I've found the solution: After creating an image I open the image in the GHOST-explorer. If that's possible the image is ok and you can restore it later without problems.

By the way I select the highest compression level each time.

Please excuse my bad English.

Gott ist tot (Nietzsche).
Nietzsche ist tot (Gott).