Jump to content
Logo

Ghost 14 a spectral image of 12

First INQpressions Norton Ghost 14.0
Friday, 23 May 2008, 12:26

Product: Norton Ghost 14.0
Website: Nortonghost14
System Requirements: Windows Vista Home Basic/Home Premium/Business/Ultimate
Price: £39.99, ?59.99 $69.99


ANOTHER YEAR passes and another version of the Norton Ghost disc imaging software lands on our desk for a review. This time around Symantec said it had included some useful additions since we last looked at it in July 2007, so we thought we’d call in its successor.

From the outset there appears to be almost no change in appearance or operation between the last edition and Ghost 14.0. There are some small notable differences though that would be easily missed by the untrained eye, or someone that doesn’t RTFM. One of which is that they’ve dropped support for anything below Windows XP, leaving the 2000 users and below out in the cold. Symantec have also increased here the addressable partition size, from 2TB to 16TB.

The other minor inclusion is the Feedback tool. It’s annoyingly always present on the main page and should be under the help tab rather than anywhere else. It does appear Symantec comes off looking a bit like a needy girlfriend, with this visible reassurance.

feedback
Norton Ghost 14.0 ? Send Feedback

The Lights Out Restore ability is a nice idea, where a disc image is said to be capable of restoration from a fairly low-level approach. Effectively, once fully installed it acts almost identically to a Symantec Ghost Recovery Disc (SRD). Only now, this function is built onto the HDD and is not run from CD. The only the real difference between this and the actual SRD, is that a thin client, host-only version of PC Anywhere appears when it starts up. This provides the remote access for the non-supplied, fully-blown application, where all the same restore functions can be accessed and performed.

Ghost is still being sold in a single licence format, which is very curious when other packages around are not. The likes of Norton Internet Security and Norton 360 all have three licenses, which could be a lot more useful here. Especially seeing as another tool they’re touting in this release is Norton Ghost Server Connection. It’s a new function where a Ghost client agent can be deployed to other computers from 14.0, where backups can be managed and run. This is all well and good in itself, only another license for each and every computer used is needed and is not supplied.

offsite

Norton Ghost 14.0 ? Offsite Copy

Another new ability in the latest version is Offsite Copy, an option to add to the bog standard backup places. Where additionally the Ghost image is offloaded to different and separate location: networked drive, another directory or even an FTP site. After the initial backup is complete, Ghost reports that the task is finished ? when this is not the case. The task of copying the image to the selected locations hasn't even started. The other qualm we have is more of a missing addition to Ghost. With Norton 360, Symantec provides, as a part of the purchase price, access to either 2 or 10GB of secure off-line storage for backing up files, which could have been a useful addition in 14.0 too.

threatcon
Norton Ghost 14.0 ? ThreatCon Triggers

The final useful addition we found in Ghost 14.0, is a new back-up trigger. This runs off the Symantec Threat Con level, where HQ is polled every 30 minutes to see if there’s a viral or security outbreak. If there is, and conditions are met, then a backup is automatically kicked off to secure the system and data. A welcome and well-thought out inclusion, this is also seen in other Symantec suites, such as Backup Exec.

For testing we resorted to our t-rusty auld DELL 600sc with a PIII 3.06Mhz proc, 512MB RAM and two 120 E-IDE drives. This was just to show the possible worst-case scenario, knowing full well Ghost will fare better on most PCs currently around. It comfortably runs Vista Business Edition OS, with 10.1GB of storage space taken up and 101GB free. The PC is of a reliable build, a solid performer and a decent measure of what 14.0 can get away with running on.

In both of the benchmark tests we performed a normal full backup of the C drive, with standard recommended compression and common options enabled.

g12backup
Norton Ghost 12.0 ? Backup test

As you can see from the screen shot above, the complete C: drive imaging took 13 minutes and 5 seconds to complete.

g14backup

Norton Ghost 14.0 ? Backup test

The full backup of the C: Drive, with Ghost 14.0 took just 12 minutes and 47 seconds ? a noticeable improvement. Do take into account, that those results in a much better system with lots more data would have a greater margin of time distance between them.

When it came to the restoration of the two backed-up images, we needed to boot into the SRD of each version to action the test. As we couldn’t really take screen shots from this, even though we toyed with the idea of running it virtually and grabbing images, you’ll just have to take our word on the results. Ghost 12.0 restored its previously backed-up disc image of 5.3GB in 8 minutes and 51 seconds. Ghost 14.0 restored its own backed-up image too of 5.4GB in 9 minutes and 11 seconds. A minor discrepancy in size and restoration times from version to version, from what’s expected which would normally be an improvement on its successor.

In Short
Really, this should be 12.5 and not 14.0 ? as there isn’t a great deal of change to warrant a new product in our opinion. It could also seriously mislead Joe Public with them seeing version 14.0 out, not knowing there wasn’t a 13 and thinking there’s been greater change than there actually is. In saying that, the support licence is only for a year when purchased. If it came down to biting the bullet with 12 or going 14, go with the higher number always, if for the support updates alone.

The Good
ThreatCon automatic backup triggers, offsite backup

The Bad
Licencing, LightsOut Recovery, No Halloween edition of Ghost 13

The Ugly
Not much has really changed from 12.0

Bartender's Report
I'll have half

Share this:

Comments
Lalala

I didn't know they made 3.06 Mhz P3's. That must have been an early prototype in your Dell. ;) s/Mhz/Ghz s/PIII/P4

posted by : Community ED, 23 May 2008Complain about this comment
any reason why i should change...

so... is there any reason i should change from my trusty ghost v8.3 ?? ghost v9 was awful... so were v10, 11, 12 and 13 does this steaming pile of **** come with a lightweight dos executable that can be written on a dos-bootable cd/dvd alongside the ghost backup images to create a single-disk recovery dvd?

posted by : me, 23 May 2008Complain about this comment
Yes, but...

...does it still have the ability to create a boot floppy or CD? That's the one and only feature that is important to me...and the reason why I never upgraded from Ghost 2003. The version after that didn't have that capability...which is mind-boggling to me.

posted by : Motoman, 23 May 2008Complain about this comment
NG sucks

i think ng sucks acronis is fast and has more features

posted by : haider, 23 May 2008Complain about this comment
Norton bought and killed Ghost

Ghost is dead, the spectral image you see before you is actually Norton Drive Image. Which still sucks.

posted by : Jellodyne, 23 May 2008Complain about this comment
4 free alternatives

http://freshmeat.net/projects/g4l/ http://www.partimage.org/Main_Page http://www.clonezilla.org/ http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/

posted by : Ugly American, 24 May 2008Complain about this comment
Ghost 12 & 14

I have XP PRO at home and I always wanted some sort of backup or an image. I remember when Ghost was a DOS product and it was begining as a Windows product. It worked really well. Everything was imaged to a CD and that was it. I remember seeing it work with W2K with no problems. If you needed to restore an image, out came your floppy and CD, and the PC was reimaged. I tried to create an image with V12 on my XP PC and even with the Symantech support line, it could not be done. I refunded the product. I do not use any Symantech products anymore. They're either bloated, too expensive or they don't work.

posted by : Scotty, 24 May 2008Complain about this comment
Noticable Improvement?

How can you describe a difference in backup times of little better than 2% - 785 sec vs. 767 sec = 18 sec as a 'noticable improvement? I doubt many people would actually notice this improvement. Anyway, the last time I had to rely upon recovery from a Ghost image it just plain & simple didn't work. Personally, I think that any backup solution that requires proprietary tools for recovery is of very dubious value - even the slightest bug in the software can make it worthless, as I found out.

posted by : LeeE, 24 May 2008Complain about this comment
No longer the only game in town

There are other alternatives for cloning these days that are pretty good. HDClone has been good for me. Ghost has gone from being the no-brainer choice for cloning to a becoming a questionable choice. Not a particularly good track record by the Norton development team.

posted by : Homefries, 24 May 2008Complain about this comment
Annoyed

It is devestatingly annoying for a freethinker such as myself to see companies skip version 13 as if it's something bad. First MS with Office 14 and now this POS. Can we all leave our kindergarden fairly tales now?

posted by : JGurtz, 26 May 2008Complain about this comment
Upgrades

Using Ghost 11 and the lack of support for Windows 2000 is enough to make sure I don't upgrade to 14. It seems that they love to come out with new versions with minor new features but still all the bugs. I'll just stick with 11, I know how to get around the bugs.

posted by : tom, 26 May 2008Complain about this comment
Does exactly what it says on the tin

I switched from Acronis 10 to Ghost 14 a while back. Sure, there's more to fiddle with in Acronis, but I've never had so many problems from an imaging program. It took them months to get round to adding support for the ICH8R to their recovery CD, then I switched mice only to find my G5 didn't work in the recovery environment. Final straw was when I couldn't produce a single validated image in Vista post sp1 (even after a reformat and hours in memtest). This is the only Norton product I'd touch with a bargepole, and it's definitely more competent than their usual efforts! I like being able to add drivers to the recovery cd - that's really made life easier!.

posted by : AD, 27 May 2008Complain about this comment
I prefer DriveClone Pro

Norton Ghost is too fancy and annoyingly too much. It just takes too much time trying to feature out all its features and you don't even end up using half of them. I'm really into products that are affordable and have friendly user interface, keeping all the necessary features, only the ones that are important. DriveClone Pro was perfect for me! It's around $50, cheaper than its competiting software. It's real nice and easy to follow. It has all the features such as: incremental backup, automatic backup, complete drive backup, bare metal restore, complete external backup, hardware support, vista/windows support, customized schedule backup, pre-windows recovery. more info: http://farstone.com/software/driveclone-pro.htm

posted by : kuanglien, 29 May 2008Complain about this comment
What Norton is lacking

Universal Restore to be included in the package. DriveClone Pro includes Universal Restore in its $50 value instead of having to buy this feature like a side order. Universal REstore is crucial nowadays, allowing users to restore to dissimilar hardsware of different size, format, brand, or even different operating systems! And one unique feature of DriveClone I like to point out is its USB Hot Drive. It allows you to backup and restore onto an USB drive. Interesting enough, you can view from the USB and work from it as if it were your local hard drive. like a mini clone. here's a free trial I found: http://www.farstone.us/download/driveclone-pro/DriveClone-Pro-5.0.exe And I heard there's a promotion going on right now... anyone know the promotion code?

posted by : Peter, 29 May 2008Complain about this comment
NICE SITE

NICE ARTICLE, MANY USEFUL AND VERY HELPFULL INFORMATIONS, THANKS SO MUTCH FOR EVERYTHING WHAT YOU WRITE IN THIS ITEM! VERY HELPFUL CHEERS

posted by : chlorophyll, 11 October 2008Complain about this comment
Advertisement
Subscribe to the INQ Newsletter
Sign-up for the INQBot weekly newsletter
Click here to sign up Existing user
Advertisement
INQ Poll

Consumer Electronics Show

CES 2009 shrinks through lack of interest