Norton Ghost 2002 - or how I learned to start getting angry and hate Symantec. (1 Viewer)

[Rob Gillespie]

I've been a fan of Ghost for over two years. It's a terrific disk/partition cloning and imaging app. Fits on a floppy and does the job pefectly.
Last week I bought the new 2002 edition as it's the only one that support the version of NTFS used by Windows XP. All well and good, except that Symantec have decided that you must now type in a twelve character licence key code every time you want to restore from an image file. Not every time you run Ghost, every instance of restoring or cloning.
With the amount of usage Ghost gets on my two systems, this is nothing short of a major pain in the arse. And the reason for all this tomfoolery? Here you go...
quote: Situation:
When using Norton Ghost 2002, you frequently have to type the license number before Ghost will continue. You want a way to avoid typing the license number many times.
Solution:
Norton Ghost 2002 does not include a switch that allows you to add the license number to the Ghost command line, and does not have a means for avoiding typing the license number.
Ghost requires that you type the license number each time you want to restore an image, and each time you perform a Disk-to-Disk or Partition-to-Partition clone. If you find that you have to type the license number frequently, Symantec Ghost 7.0 might be a better option for you.
Consumer versions
The consumer Ghost versions, such as Norton Ghost 2000, 2001, and 2002, are designed for use on one or two computers. Ghost clones disks and partitions on one computer, or from one computer to another, one at a time. Ghost uses the license number to remind customers that consumer Ghost is licensed "for single use only." That is, Ghost is licensed for use with one source computer, or for use with that source computer and a destination computer. Typically, restores, Disk-to-Disk operations, and Partition-to-Partition operations are performed infrequently in "single use" situations.[/quote]
So, despite using Ghost only on two PCs and paying full retail price for it, I still have to enter this damn code every time I need to do some work.
I have one thing to say to this:
SYMANTEC - YOU SUCK. THIS IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS DECISION I'VE SEEN IN SOFTWARE DESIGN FOR YEARS. YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO APPRECIATION OF YOUR CONSUMER BASE - YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP YOU IN BUSINESS. THANKS A BUNCH. NEXT TIME I'LL BE GOING WITH DRIVE IMAGE
Shit, I'm annoyed.
[Edited last by Rob Gillespie on November 12, 2001 at 08:29 AM]

 

[Iain Lambert]

Ouch! And companies wonder why some people condone the cracking of software. Its back to the days of legitimate users cracking the codewheels on Amiga games again, by the looks of things. Don't these companies ever learn?

 

[CRyan]

Wow... To remind users of the liscensing agreement. Umm, that makes absolutely no sense as far as I can tell. If this keeps up, I am going to have to start a file in the ole' business filing cabinet just for software keys. I am sorry, but this is just getting old. I simply do not have time to dick with this mess almost everyday.
Does it generate a new string for every image you make? Ugh.
C. Ryan
------------------
http://www.elitestoragedesigns.com/RyanOAR.bmp

 

[John Tillman]

I just re-formated my hard drive, re-loaded windows 2k then copied all my applications back over from my 2nd machine.
Was thinking about buying the latest version of Symantec anti-virus but before I do, can anyone recommend another anti-virus product to look at for W2k?

 

[Rob Gillespie]

C. - no, the key stays the same. There is an intro screen that appears each time you run ghostpe.exe - and the key is displayed on there.
This design is so retarded it defies belief. The number is given to you every time you run the program. Then when you need to restore or close, you have to type it in. It doesn't change.
Whomever made this decision is total dipshit. It's nothing more than a plot to get people to pay the £100+ for the corporate version. Assholes. You are a total bunch of dickless assholes Symantec and this will be the very last of your products I buy.
Yeah, I'm annoyed.

 

[Larry Carlson]

You know, I purchased this and figured I was doing something wrong. I figured that I had missed a check off box in the installation process or something. I figured that no company would deliberately do something so consumer unfriendly or just plain stupid. So I uninstalled it and redid the installation process. Same stupid thing. Fool that I am, I was still thinking that I did something wrong.
I reread the manual and the help files. No reference to that. I realize now that they should have had an entry in the index titled "Screwing the consumer". I don't know what idiot came up with this idea, but hopefully he's fired by now.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

The only reason I bought 2002 was because of the issue with NTFS in Windows XP. I think I'll reinstall XP on a FAT32 partition (2000 is my main OS) and sell Ghost off to the highest bidder.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Rob,
I agree completely with you. This is ridiculous. It seems that around 6 years ago there began a general trend in software away from consumer friendliness.
Also, I often wonder how much time is lost on fixing problems on software that is freshly installed. I wasted two hours talking to HP to find out that my K80 printer is in fact not compatible with XP. Fortunately, their merger with Compaq is on the rocks....
When will these companies learn?
Lee

 

[Richard Cooper]

And couple that with the severe lack of compatibility in todays machines (I know you can get hardware which DOES work together, but I'm talking generally) and you have to wonder how long until the whole computer industry folds.

 

[Kimmo Jaskari]

Yeah, lately it seems to always be the copy protection efforts that piss me off.
I bought a game a while back ("Emperor" from Westwood in case anyone cares) and was unable to play it because I happened to have a DVD-ROM in my laptop.
The machine was well capable of handling the hardware requirements and works very well with just about every other game I've thrown at it, but they had chosen some really anally retentive protection scheme that just wouldn't work.
Any protection scheme that substantially impacts a customers use of the product is too much protection, IMHO. Especially as all these copyprotection measures are pointless except possibly to deter casual disc copying - the true pirates and online crackers will still routinely defeat the protection and create a cracked version with ease. That of course means that it doesn't protect the product from piracy but it does hurt the very people who have paid for the product!
It's offensive every time a piece of software becomes less usable because of copy protection measures, IMHO.
------------------
/Kimmo

 

[Rob Gillespie]

I wouldn't mind too much, but what Symantec have done here in no way stops people pirating their product. The ONLY thing it does (and probably the only thing it was designed to do) is to remind me that I use Ghost too much and I should be paying a load more money out for the corporate version. Utterly despicable. Symantec have shown themselves to be a bunch of cads.
quote: Ghost requires that you type the license number each time you want to restore an image, and each time you perform a Disk-to-Disk or Partition-to-Partition clone. If you find that you have to type the license number frequently, Symantec Ghost 7.0 might be a better option for you.[/quote]
See what I mean? If you use Ghost more than once in a blue moon then you've bought the wrong product and should have spent a pile more money on our corporate version. Except that you're not a business, you're a single user. Well tough shit, we think you should spend more money anyway.
I could make a hundred copies of Ghost 2002 and give them away. The code would be given to each person every time they run the program. This ain't protection against piracy. It's extortion by annoyance.
Symantec, you are the lowest of the low. I hope you go out of business because with practices like this, you don't deserve a single damn customer. Go to hell.
[Edited last by Rob Gillespie on November 12, 2001 at 06:19 PM]

 

[Rob Gillespie]

...and to make matters worse, I've found that once Windows XP is installed on the same drive as previous OSs using NTFS, then the MFT tables get affected in such a way as to make sure you have to use Ghost 2002 unless you want to completely reinstall all the versions of Windows you have.
I've just tried formatting the XP partition on my second machine as FAT32, hoping that I could go back to using Ghost 2001. But oh no, I stil get the errors and there doesn't seem to be any way around it.
Symantec are dicks. Drive Image here I come.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Not that I am supporting them, but has anyone contacted Symnantec about this? It may be a bug. They have made mistakes before.
Glenn

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Glen, the quotes in my earlier posts are directly from the Symantec support pages for Ghost 2002. It's deliberate.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Ouch, Rob! It's too bad we can't petition them like we did for Wonka.
Glenn

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Well, we can. We just buy Drive Image instead

 

[Craig Chatterton]

It may be in their Support Pages, but you should still write them a note about it. Act clueless, ask them why you have to type in the license code every single time you want to use their product. Then when they come back with the standard reply, send a note back saying how disappointed you are with that decision.
I used to work in Customer Support. Believe me, there's nothing we hated more than getting a thousand calls from irate customers because of a marketing decision. Their customer support will complain to marketing and *maybe* they'll decide it's not worth all the money they're spending trying to support this stupid decision.

 

[Richard Cooper]

I guess it's another thing put in by people who count pennies, rathe thano those who UNDERSTAND.