B
Bob S
Guest
I like Ghost and have used it for years. The main draw backs were/are dependency on DOS and lack of automation.
Now came Ghost 2003... I bought it because of the ease of USB and SCSI support, plus I thought it would automatically boot into DOS, make a back up and boot back. WRONG!!
I sent numerous emails to Symantec and asking them why my "automatic" images were all corrupt both for XP and Windows 2000. I explained that boot disks still worked fine. They kept sending me questions. I think this was in an effort to make me go away. But, I kept answering the questions. Finally, last night they told me that using the boot disks was an acceptable work around. What garbage!!
The primary reason for this rant is to find out if any has gotten The windows feature of Ghost 2003 to work and if so, how??
Thanks, Bob S.
Now came Ghost 2003... I bought it because of the ease of USB and SCSI support, plus I thought it would automatically boot into DOS, make a back up and boot back. WRONG!!
I sent numerous emails to Symantec and asking them why my "automatic" images were all corrupt both for XP and Windows 2000. I explained that boot disks still worked fine. They kept sending me questions. I think this was in an effort to make me go away. But, I kept answering the questions. Finally, last night they told me that using the boot disks was an acceptable work around. What garbage!!
The primary reason for this rant is to find out if any has gotten The windows feature of Ghost 2003 to work and if so, how??
Thanks, Bob S.