Talk:Ghost (disk utility)

YANK candidate: "sometimes used as [backup programs]" (!)

There is a statement that I feel to be entirely unsupported: "Although disk cloning programs are not primarily backup programs, they are sometimes used as such." This really should be yanked. Regardless of it's use within the admin world, when viewed as an aggragate you'll find that *most* people are using this app for creating backup images. "sometimes" just isn't right. Tgm1024 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

~~Update History: as of October 2009 Ghost development was moved from Auckland to India~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.140.96 (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Article tidy-up needed?

This article has become a bit difficult to follow, not perhaps due to Wikipedians but due to a somewhat confusing version numbering system and version numbering history. It seems there are two separate versioning models for Ghost, home user and corporate products. Some have names instead of numbers, some both names and numbers. And to further obscure things, even each specific product has two version numbers both with sub-version numbering. For example there is currently Ghost 2.5.1 which is also referred to as 11.5.1.2266. It isn't very clear in the article which versions are home user which are corporate use and which are generic use. I'm not sure how this could be better presented? Maybe a table of some sort with checkboxes? --G. (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is confusing, and the detail of the various revisions is probably best removed. I have a conflict of interest here as I was one of the developers of Ghost. At the time I wrote the article, such conflicts of interest were not as clearly disparaged on Wikipedia as they are now, but I think it would be inappropriate for me to make major changes to the article. However I can provide an explanation of the version numbers:

The original ghost has version numbers 1 - 8.3 and then 11.5, and is also packaged into "Ghost Solutions Suite" with numbering up to 2.5. This is the corporate version of ghost. There was also Norton Ghost 2002 and 2003, which was the same code-base but with a user-friendly front end intended for consumer rather than business users.

Ghost 9 to 15, sometimes called Norton Save and Restore, is a product for consumers using an entirely different code base and with no compatibility with the original ghost (other than a copy of the original being included in some packs).

The corporate 8.x and 11.x overlap in time with the consumer 9 - 15 versions.

I hope this will assist someone in clearing up the article.-gadfium 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel, we need to condense most of this article's information in to history portion and write just the current release's major features.--Pinecar (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ghost 9 came with a copy of 2003. The reason gave in the package was because 9 was not "DOS-compatible." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.152.178 (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Without removing the features and version history, which I find valuable, I think at a minimum the consumer and corporate product lines should be listed separately. Also the fact that v9 to v15 is fake ghost will get clarified by doing this. This is important because a lot of consumers are getting fooled into buying substandard Norton ghost line versions while believing that they are getting the classic ghost quality. This is clear from the 2 star reviews of ghost 15 on amazon and the forums that are full of complaints. This deception was clearly the purpose of mixing the two separate codebases in the same versioning system by thecompany, so wikipedia where people come for the impartial truth, should be the place where this is explained clearly. Right nowthe article is only helping the company to continue the confusion and deception 76.100.60.110 (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

update Ghost

Actually since 2003, there are 2 programs Ghost, one compatible with .gho classic images and another based on Powerquest Drive Image that has nothing to do with the first.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=es&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://foro.elhacker.net/software/norton_ghost_2016-t454783.0.html&usg=ALkJrhj-VYoHItGfr5F25WCYgf-1EEluKA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cixert (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it safe?

A computer technician Used ghost on my old computer to repair the windows install, but now it says Ghost Win 7. is this safe? right now I don't feel like I should put any sensitive data on the machine. is Ghost win 7 secure and safe for my sensitive files and login passwords? 219.140.153.248 (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Edit: the reason I ask is because I'm aware there is a virus called ghost as well.219.140.153.248 (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Earlier Ghost versions for DOS (before the mentioned 3.1)

See http://www.z80.eu/blog/index.php?entry=entry201228-155943 ... there were versions before the first mentioned DOS Ghost version.