I reckon I have become quite attached with the 2003 version of Norton Ghost (DOS based)that came with the Norton SystemWorks 2003. I have never been totally sold on the idea of Live Cloning (Windows based)which many Cloning Applications depend on nowadays. I have tried a number of them out and I just thought my version of Norton Ghost DOS was superior in performance and dependability, especially with using XP Pro. As far as using Vista and/or Windows 7 RC, the only major difference is needing either the Windows 7 (or Vista) installation disc or System repair disc to boot up a newly restored Ghost image file. I don't know how fast any of the current Cloning Applications can fully restore a Vista and/or Windows 7 OS. With my rendition of Windows 7 RC 7100 64-bit, with a data size of about 7Gb's, I can restore a Ghost Image file(from a slower USB HDD external), bootup with the System repair disc (DVD...CD is much slower), and have Windows 7 RC 7100 64-bit totally restored and functional in 7 minutes.

David - Thanks for the tip... Good info to have...

I made a mistake.With the scenario that I described above: from the moment Ghost starts to bootup in DOS (from a CD clone of a floppy) to the moment the Windows 7 Welcome/logon screen appears - less than 10 minutes. I got my total times confused. If I were to restore the Ghost Image from a much quicker SATA(2) 3Gb/ps internal HDD it would take less than 7 minutes for a fully operational restore. The USB HDD External that I mentioned above is actually comprised of an old Western Digital Caviar 120GB EIDE in a IDE to USB HDD External Enclosure. As fast as it is for an older drive,it's till at least twice as slowas the SATA's.

David - Ok.. So it's 3 - 4 minutes slower with an EIDE drive - It's still a good tip..! Thanks...