Hi guys,

I'd like to ask you a question about a problem I've had more than once with Ghost 9.0.

Two completely separate machines were affected by this - One was a custom-built machine based on the ECS KT600-A motherboard (Don't laugh, it's reliable at stock speed, and it's my second rig).  The other is is a Gateway M505X (Pentium-M, Intel chipset, and Hitachi 7K60 hard drive).  The 7K60 was attached using a laptop-desktop IDE adapter.

I made a copy of an entire drive into an image file on a different hard drive.   The drive that I copied off of had a working Windows install.  MBR was to be included in the image, and I did not disable SmartSector copying.

I checked the image multiple times prior to deleting the drive, the image integrity was not compromised.  I was able to access files in the image.

However, problems arose when I restored:
Both machines boot, and the initial XP splash screen shows up.  The little blue blobs scroll across the screen, the resolution changes, and the big blue "loading your personal settings" screen comes up.

This is where the machine sits for 5+ minutes until I turn it off.  I also notice that the num lock light flashes on my keyboard.  It seems that XP goes through some sort of a cycle repeatedly, instead of breaking out of it.

I've had other successful Norton 9.0 image/restore cycles.  I have no idea what I'm changing to make the restore successful...

I've browsed through the board, and haven't been able to locate a solution, largely because I can't think of the proper keywords to search for.  I'll be very grateful for any assistance you may have.


Thanks,

Alex

That suks. I feel yer pain.

I have no answer, but would be curious to see what happens if you used Ghost v2003 instead, particularly from a bootable floppy.

R.

Norton 2003, as far as I am concerned, is irrepairably broken.

Thanks to its handling of file names (i.e. it PRETENDS to take long file names, but truncates the subsequent volume files to 8.3, even when making an image on an NTFS volume) I LOST a hard drive.  Completely lost.

I had two backups that I was making onto the same hard disk, I called them Laptop Drive Old and Laptop Drive New (I needed the "factory" image that the laptop shipped with)

I made "laptop drive old."  Unbeknownst to me, I had "Laptop drive old.something" and a string of laptopdr.### files, because Ghost 2003, at best, needs to be coaxed into NOT making ten billion different files instead of one giant image file, and 9.0 defaults to making one file that can't interfere with anything else

I proceeded to make Laptop Drive New...  And guess what..  no warning, no error message, and the second volume of Laptop Drive New...  becomes laptopdr.001 or something, overwriting laptopdr.001 that belonged to the "Old" image.

Of course, since Ghost refuses to try to "repair" the image file, as it was made of an NTSF volume, I can't get to ANY data past the first two gigs of the drive.  

None of this would have happened if I was doing it in a pleasant graphical environment with overwite warnings, and ability to handle files over 2gb in size.  Despite its shortcomings, I prefer 9.0 - it's just SAFER, and, since it runs the drives in DMA mode, a lot faster too.

Don't get me started on bootable floppies.  Much like PS/2, parallel, and serial ports, this ancient 16-bit technology merely slows down progress.  Just think how much more productive we'd be if we could boot Ghost off a thumb drive, or install RAID drivers during an initial XP install off a second CD.  

You sound angry.

We have different opinions. Another opinion is posted here:

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1112785045

Ghost 2003 maintains long file names of files IN THE IMAGE. It's the name of the image itself, which is handled under DOS, that is subject to the limits of the DOS 8.3 naming limitations.

I discuss this in the guide on the page where the image is created:

http://ghost.radified.com/ghost_2.htm

"Try to limit the file name to no more than 8 characters.. to observe the 8.3 DOS file limit scheme. My naming system uses 6 characters. If you dual-boot, or multi-boot, pay extra attention during naming. It's not difficult to mis-label or mis-name images, such as C or D, etc. I have made this mistake myself. Bad, bad. You don't find out until it's too late. Pay extra attention if it's late at night and you're tired.

Certain types of naming schemes can cause problems. If the first 5 characters of your original file names are the same for different images, and you images span larger than 2-GB, and you store all your images in the same directory, Ghost will automatically generate identical *.ghs files for the parts of your image(s) that exceed 2-GB. Nealtoo says:

"I have found the enemy and he is me. The naming convention I was using was identical for the first 8 characters of the *.gho file name. e.g. "Drive C 09-23-03". When Ghost named the spanned *.ghs files in DOS format (8.3), they all became DriveOO1.ghs, Drive002.ghs, etc. Ghost apparently truncates the original file names (*.gho) at 5 characters, and adds 001.ghs, 002.ghs to the spanned file sections. So, when I would make a new image, with the first part of the filename being identical to the previous image, Ghost was overwriting previously written spanned files."
It's a common mistake. But to say the program is "irrepairably broken" doesn't wash with me.

I've used it to create hundreds of images and restore dozens. All worked fine.

Yet your glitch with v9.0 (Drive Image repackaged after Symantec bought Powerquest) remains.

odeen

I do not have or use Ghost 9.x, so take this advice for what it's worth:

A couple general trouble shooting questions and suggestions--

1.  What OS are you using--same or different on each of the two machines?

2.  Can you start in 'Safe-Mode'?


Quote:

I've had other successful Norton 9.0 image/restore cycles.  I have no idea what I'm changing to make the restore successful...

3.  It's unclear from your statement--you have used Ghost 9.x on these machines, and performed the exact same procedure in the past that you can not do now?

4.  What common thing have you done, changed, added, upgraded--since the last time you successfully did the Ghost 9.x procedure on these machines?

5.  Have you disabled the boot splash screen so you see any possible error messages or other screen displays that might show you what endless cycle is occurring?  See here for discussion:

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1112251676;start=#9

6.  Other Ghost 9.x users posted problems related to 'Data Execution Prevention policy' issues--see here:

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1107820695

and here:

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1105391857

and here:

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1104859301



Now--I apologize up front--don't take this wrong--I'm not trying to be derogatory--I'm really a nice guy and I enjoy trying to help...  ;) :


Quote:

Norton 2003, as far as I am concerned, is irrepairably broken.

Is it the software...or the user that's broken?

When in DOS OS, do as DOS does!  The software is designed for DOS--long file names not equal to DOS.  

Read the user manual--it describes how file naming occurs in DOS.

I know it's too late now for this suggestion to help you--but I always create a new sub-directory for each new image, so I never have to worry about file name issues and overwriting an existing image.


Quote:

None of this would have happened if I was doing it in a pleasant graphical environment with overwite warnings, and ability to handle files over 2gb in size.  Despite its shortcomings, I prefer 9.0 - it's just SAFER, and, since it runs the drives in DMA mode, a lot faster too.

That's why Ghost 9.x is working so well for you right now?  Hmmmmm...


Quote:

Don't get me started on bootable floppies.  Much like PS/2, parallel, and serial ports, this ancient 16-bit technology merely slows down progress.  Just think how much more productive we'd be if we could boot Ghost off a thumb drive,

Aren't thumb drives a USB technology?  Booting from a USB device--isn't that a BIOS hardware issue?  Why blame Ghost 2003?  By the way, I have booted DOS with DOS USB support with a compact flash memory card in my multi-card USB reader with Ghost 2003 on the flash card, and performed Ghost procedures without any further problems.  But, no, I was not booting from the flash card.

USB is really a Windows interface protocol and was not really meant to be used under DOS.


Quote:

or install RAID drivers during an initial XP install off a second CD.

Isn't that a Windows install program 'limitation' (bug)--again, why blame Ghost 2003?

By the way, there is a way to copy the Windows install CD to your HDD, edit the install script to point to your third party drivers, add the third party RAID drivers to the install files, and then re-burn the modified install files back to a bootable CD, and now have your third party drivers already available on the install CD, and you no longer have to use F6, a floppy drive, or a second CD (which the Windows install software doesn't offer you the option of doing).

Odeen, a few thoughts:

[1] Based on an exchange of emails with Symantec, I learned that Ghost 9.0 'might' have problems with a restore if the original disk was ‘highly’ fragmented.  For this reason, I typically run Norton Speed Disk prior to creating an image.  Could this possibly be the reason why prior restore operations worked and the current one does not?

[2] See the article at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1202778,00.asp for a description of how to create a Windows XP boot diskette.  I recommend that you try to start the PC with a Windows XP boot diskette, and see if you can avoid the existing issue.  If this works, run a "CHKDSK /R" on the drive.

[3] Although I have not used it myself, there exists a tool called ERD Commander (http://www.winternals.com/products/repairandrecovery/erdcommander2002.asp?pid=erd) that appears to offer a high degree of functionality for solving non-booting PC issues.

Please post your results.

P.S.:  Although I too use only Ghost 9.0, I think that calling Ghost 2003 "irreparably broken" may be an exaggeration.  The tool still works, although it clearly is a legacy application that will (for better or worse) fade into the shadows.  It's interesting to me that for every one post on this forum with a Ghost 9.0 question, there are probably ten with a Ghost 2003 issue.  And, I suspect that the number of Ghost 9.0 users is currently larger than the user base for Ghost 2003.  What does that tell you?

Pleonasm


Quote:

It's interesting to me that for every one post on this forum with a Ghost 9.0 question, there are probably ten with a Ghost 2003 issue.  And, I suspect that the number of Ghost 9.0 users is currently larger than the user base for Ghost 2003.  What does that tell you?

That Rad's Ghost Guide was based initially on Ghost 2002 and gradually updated to Ghost 2003--never has been a Guide to Ghost 9.x    ;)   .

Sorry if I seemed angry, but I'm not a big fan of Ghost 2003, and the "particularly from a bootable floppy" comment seemed especially condescending.  It was late, I was tired, an

I haven't seen anything that Ghost 2003 couldn't set up from Windows interface, or bootable CD that's accessible from a bootable floppy.  We've had bootable CD functionality for YEARS, so there's no reason to force the floppy issue, especially with so many OEM computers shipping without floppy drives.  Plus, given how unreliable floppies are, I would rather trust executable code from write-once optical media than magnetic media where the head makes contact with the disk.  

THAT aside, I found the solution

It seems that, even if I force Windows / Ghost 9.0 to NOT assign a drive letter to the drive / partition, some bits end up written to the "Volume Bytes" portion of the MBR.  These bytes are responsible for "sticky" drive letters, i.e. a K: drive that takes the K: drive letter in any machine you stick it in.  

I used MBRTool ( http://www.diydatarecovery.nl/mbrtool.htm ) on my Ultimate Boot CD (oooh..  high-capacity reliable optical media) [url]www.ultimatebootcd.com[/b] to zap the Volume Bytes on the drive, and all was well.  I still don't know why I was able to do this before WITHOUT needing to zap the Volume Bytes, but at least I have a documented solution.

My beef with Norton Ghost 2003:
1) Supports LFN for disk images, but drops back to 8.3 for subsequent volume files (i.e. Computer1.gho will generate subsequent files named  computer.g01, computer.g02...computer.gXX).  If you're going to drop back to 8.3, don't offer the user long file names PERIOD
2) Splits image into multiple volumes by default when it's not needed (leading to problem #1)
3) Doesn't check whether it's overwriting the volume files (i.e. Computer1.gho and Computer2.gho will both generate computer.g01, computer.g02...computer.gXX, with the gXX files belonging to computer2.gho overwriting gXX files belonging to computer1.gho).  If you require a third-party guide that tells you to avoid certain functionality (such as images with long names), you fail it.
4) Runs in some unholy concoction of NTFS-writing DOS.  Personally, I like to be able to see where I'm going, and use standard Windows file dialog boxes, instead of "Source = Drive X, Destination = Drive Y."  Most can handle it, but it's FAR too error-prone than using standard means of selecting volumes in Windows.
5) Can't recover from a missing volume file (at least for images of NTFS partitions/disks)

Basically, there are conditions where Ghost 2003 will destroy data without prompting.  That alone means that Ghost 2003 fails it.  

There are a lot of things that are EASIER to do with Ghost 9.0, since it's possible to open up My Computer, or the Disk Management administrative tool and "check your work" before you commit.   Plus running DMA disk access under Windows is a lot faster than PIO access under DOS.  It took me several hours to image a drive under Ghost 2003, it takes me about 40 minutes to do the same task under 9.0.

Anyways...  my laptop boots, and I've found a way to fix the condition.  Go me :)

I am not confident that a discussion about whether Ghost 2003 is better/worse than Ghost 9.0 is in the best interests of the readership of the forum.  We all have our own individual preferences, in software as well as in all other purchase categories.  The world is big.  There is room for more than one PC image backup application.  Having said that, I too am guilty of reacting negatively to those who react negatively to Ghost 9.0.

I do understand that the Rad's Ghost Guide has never been updated to Ghost 9.0.  I suspect that it never will, principally because there is no need for a Rad Ghost 9.0 Guide.  Ghost 9.0 is much too straightforward to warrant the effort of a Rad Guide, and that’s one of the major attractions of the application, in my opinion.

Quote:

Is it the software...or the user that's broken?

Software.  If you're going to offer the user LFN's, don't stop using LFN's.  It actually WRITES an LFN file to the target disk (i.e. computer1.gho).  However, it then proceeds to write more 8.3-named files.  So, it CAN write LFN's.  It chooses not to, and that's software's fault.

At least 9.0  gets me the image in one piece, and restorable.  Just a little MBR tweak, and I'm good to go.

Pleonasm wrote on Apr 8^th, 2005 at 5:19pm:

I am not confident that a discussion about whether Ghost 2003 is better/worse than Ghost 9.0 is in the best interests of the readership of the forum.  We all have our own individual preferences, in software as well as in all other purchase categories.  The world is big.  There is room for more than one PC image backup application.  Having said that, I too am guilty of reacting negatively to those who react negatively to Ghost 9.0. I do understand that the Rad's Ghost Guide has never been updated to Ghost 9.0.  I suspect that it never will, principally because there is no need for a Rad Ghost 9.0 Guide.  Ghost 9.0 is much too straightforward to warrant the effort of a Rad Guide, and that’s one of the major attractions of the application, in my opinion.

I think my discovery, and the tools needed to fix it (fixmbr in the Windows Recovery Environment didn't do the trick) may be a part of the (smaller) Ghost 9.0 guide.  For the "I restored an image and now my Windows is stuck" crowd. :)

Pleonasm

I did not say Ghost 2003 vs Ghost 9.x was better or worse than the other--nor anything negative regarding Ghost 9.x--others have been doing that.  I was just defending Ghost 2003 and the DOS environment.

This is not a new or unique debate--which might tell you something about how it seems to be continuing....

I was using tape drive technology for backup in the Win3.x era (dare I say back around 1994).  Win3.x was closely married to DOS, but all the tape backup programmers were trying to create 'Windows Interfaces' for doing the tape backups so they had a friendlier Windows look (sound familiar?).

But guess what--the Windows Interface programs could not backup certain 'locked' files that Win3.x was using--and you could not restore a tape back up of certain OS files from a tape backup after you had reloaded the OS, and then trying to restore the backup from within the Windows Interface.

Same old problems--you had to drop back to DOS to do a full backup or restore of the OS using a tape backup option.

Isn't that true of Ghost 9.x as well if you are restoring from a HDD failure and you do not have an operational OS to boot?

NightOwl wrote on Apr 8^th, 2005 at 1:43pm:

Is it the software...or the user that's broken? When in DOS OS, do as DOS does!  The software is designed for DOS--long file names not equal to DOS.

odeen wrote on Apr 8^th, 2005 at 5:21pm:

Software.

Well, yes and no.  As NightOwl said, v2003 is really a DOS program.  It, along with DriveImage, the granddaddy of the genre, became very solid DOS products.  I've been using these products since they first came out (before that, I wrote my own assembler code to make images), and they have proven very reliable over the past decade.

However, along the way both products faced negativity in the marketplace by the growing masses of Windows users who bought into the hype that "DOS is bad".  So they pasted a Windows shell around the DOS program and said, "See, it's now a Windows program."  Not.

Pleonasm points to the volume of posts with v2003 problems, but having followed these types of threads for years in various newgroups, I've observed that the overwhelming majority of problems with Ghost 2003 and DriveImage 2002 were reported by people using the Windows interfaces.  The underlying DOS programs were very reliable, but the drop-to-DOS, reboot-to-Windows scheme was fragile.  Also, a number of problems are because the program doesn't recognize a device the user wants it to recognize, not because the imaging technology doesn't work.

The reliability of the DOS versions stems from the fact they do their work from outside Windows.  This should be intuitively obvious.  When the operating system is completely shut off, it's easy to make an image.  It's a still-life painting.  You can take all day, if you want, and the subject doesn't move.  (BTW, this is not limited to just cloning/imaging programs, but also applies to partition managers like PartitionMagic.)

In contrast, making an image from within Windows, while Windows is running, is like taking a snapshot at a rock concert.  If you're not careful, the picture comes out blurry.  Time becomes more critical.  Remember that panoramic class picture they took in high school?  The three-foot long photo of the entire senior class grouped in the quad?  Did you ever notice the couple of clowns who showed up in two places in that picture?  Now imagine Ghost hot-imaging a partition--if it's not careful, things can change at the other end of the partition before the "camera" gets there.

The fact that v9 works at all is remarkable.  The fact that it works as well as it does is a testament to the competency of its programmers.  But don't make the mistake of thinking its imaging technology is better than the DOS version's.  The DOS version may eventually fade away because of lack of support for emerging technologies--larger hard disks, new types of storage devices and interfaces, etc.  It won't be because its imaging technology is inferior, it will be because it won't see the new devices.

NightOwl, my apologies if I misinterpreted your comments.

Concerning Ghost 9.0, a restore of a non-operating system partition may occur 'live' from within Windows (i.e., a "hot restore").  To restore the operating system partition, you need to use the Symantec CD to first boot into the 'Recovery Environment,' a 'lite' version of Windows from which the Ghost 9.0 application is executed.  In both cases, it's Windows (not DOS) that is running.

Dan, I generally agree with the facts stated in your post, but I do disagree with the conclusion you draw from those facts.

Think about it.  If using Ghost 9.0 (or Drive Image 7.0 or True Image 8.0) were “like taking a snapshot at a rock concert,” then the inherent instability would result in very poor product reliability that would result in the marketplace demise of the products themselves.  Since these products are growing in popularity, it strongly suggests that the analogy is incorrect (i.e., the technology is mature and reliable).

I am not aware of any fact-based evidence that creating a disk image from within DOS is more or less superior to doing the same from within Windows.  I understand the logic of your argument; however, logic and facts are not synonymous.  Obviously, Symantec and Acronis – two major, well-respected software manufacturers - do not accept the logic you articulate.

With respect to the DOS versus Windows issue, here’s an alternative twist:  One could argue that because Windows ‘naturally’ reads/writes NTFS volumes but in DOS that’s a slick “programming trick,” a Windows-based image should be more (not less) stable.

Pleonasm wrote on Apr 8^th, 2005 at 7:42pm:

Dan, I generally agree with the facts stated in your post, but I do disagree with the conclusion you draw from those facts. Think about it.  If using Ghost 9.0 (or Drive Image 7.0 or True Image 8.0) were “like taking a snapshot at a rock concert,” then the inherent instability would result in very poor product reliability that would result in the marketplace demise of the products themselves.  Since these products are growing in popularity, it strongly suggests that the analogy is incorrect (i.e., the technology is mature and reliable).

My point was that it is not as easy to work from inside a running operating system, but I don't believe I said Ghost 9 was inherently unstable or unreliable and didn't mean to leave that impression.  It can be done (clearly, since it has been done), but it is not as simple a task (from a programming standpoint).

Stereos are easier to work on when they're not turned on.  Cars are easier to work on when they're not driving down the road.  Planes are easier to refuel on the ground.  It's easier to repair a road when it's closed to traffic.  It's easier to put your socks on when you're not standing up.  I'm not drawing conclusions, those should be intuitively obvious.  Taking a picture of anything, including an operating system, is easier when it's not a moving target.  Any shmuck can take a snapshot of a flower vase, but it takes skill to get a good shot at a rock concert.

But there are good photographers.  And Air Force jets refuel in-flight, NASCAR crews make an art form of the pit stop, and Ghost 9 hot-images.  Such tasks can be done successfully, but they're not easy and require more (programming) skill.  It takes Ghost 9 some 60-90 megabytes of programming to do what Ghost 2003 can do with a single floppy disk.  That alone should tell you that it's a more difficult way of doing things.  The fact it works and *seems* easy to the user is a credit to the skill of the programmers.

There may be reasons for not doing things the easy way.  In-flight refueling may be critical in time of war.  Pit crews trade the easy way for time savings.  In the case of Ghost 9, I believe it's primarily because of marketing considerations.  The masses are not willing to buy a DOS program, and are preconditioned to think a DOS program is inherently inferior.  Hence the kludge to turn v2003 into a Windows program--that wasn't out of necessity, it was because that's what the market demanded.  And if product reliability determined market success, Microsoft would be in trouble.  It's all about the marketing.

And the product is growing in popularity because it is *needed*, not because it's better than previous versions.  If Windows were half as reliable as Microsoft would like us to believe, there probably wouldn't be a Ghost 9.  Techies would be the only ones imaging, and they're comfortable working in DOS or linux.  There wouldn't be a demand for Ghost 9.

Again, to clarify: I'm not saying Ghost 9 is inferior, but it's also not inherently superior to v2003.  My argument is with the assertion that v2003 is inferior.  The Windows interface may be suspect, but the underlying DOS program is not.  Simplicity is its strength.

Dan Goodell wrote on Apr 9^th, 2005 at 7:59am:

And the product is growing in popularity because it is *needed*, not because it's better than previous versions.  If Windows were half as reliable as Microsoft would like us to believe, there probably wouldn't be a Ghost 9.  Techies would be the only ones imaging, and they're comfortable working in DOS or linux.  There wouldn't be a demand for Ghost 9.

There will always be a need for Imaging software as hard drives always die.  :'(

Seems kinda silly to debate imaging software, as for a long time, no one used any at all. People should just use what they like. But since someone might stumble upon this thread, and because I enjoy a good discussion with intelligent folk such as yourselves, I will weigh in.


Quote:

then the inherent instability would result in very poor product reliability

We're not talking about "very poor" reliability. We're simply saying that it's NOT AS RELIABLE as imaging from DOS .. for logical reasons already mentioned. And since the inability to restore an image can be so devastating, any decrease in reliability should be avoided.

Re:
Quote:

Since these products are growing in popularity, it strongly suggests that the analogy is incorrect

Major logical fallacy here. Popularity does not infer quality. It's known as the "bandwagon fallacy". See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_fallacy

McDonalds sells more hamburgers than anyone else. Does that mean they make a quality product? If you think so, you need to see that movie "Super Size Me"

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/super_size_me/

And where are you getting yours "facts" from that says Ghost 9 is "growing in popularity"?

Re:
Quote:

I am not aware of any fact-based evidence that creating a disk image from within DOS is more or less superior to doing the same from within Windows.

Just because you're not aware of any such facts doesn't make it false. That's known as "Argument from Ignorance". See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

For a long time, there was no fact-based evidence that smoking cigarettes was harmful. That didn't make them harmless to smoke.

Re:
Quote:

I understand the logic of your argument; however, logic and facts are not synonymous.

Logic can be proven true or false. 2 + 2 = 4 can be proven to be 4, whereas 2 + 3 = 6 can be proven false. So called "facts" can be misleading or downright wrong. At one time it was a "fact" that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Now we know better. This is what fallcies are all about: things we assume to be "facts" are sometimes false. "Facts" are suspect until proven logically correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Re:
Quote:

Obviously, Symantec and Acronis – two major, well-respected software manufacturers - do not accept the logic you articulate.

Personally, I believe they are motivated by the balance $heet:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SYMC&t=2y

.. more than technical relaibility. (The bean-counters rule over the geeks.) The DOS interface is intimidating to many. They can sell more units if they can increase the ease-of-use factor, which they have continued to do. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I'm merely saying that imaging from DOS is more reliable than from Windows. But saying that selling more units makes it better is simply wrong.

Re:
Quote:

With respect to the DOS versus Windows issue, here’s an alternative twist:  One could argue that because Windows ‘naturally’ reads/writes NTFS volumes but in DOS that’s a slick “programming trick,” a Windows-based image should be more (not less) stable.

Ah, you're really reaching now.

We've seen no problems with imagining to NTFS partitions, except sometimes to external USB drives. But it's just as easy to format a partition dedicated for receiving/storing Ghost images as FAT32 as it is NTFS.

I was thinking of linking this thread to the word "controversial" in the guide where I discuss Ghost 9.  :)

Quote:

"... There will always be a need for Imaging software as hard drives always die..." gww

A neighbor had a 60GB Seagate IDE HDD (an OEM model factory-installed in her Dell Dimension 8250) fail last month.  In an abortive attempt at resuscitation, I removed it from her PC and set it up as the Master HDD in one of my three Dell Dimensions.  I ruefully declared it kaput after seven difficult hours using the XP Recovery Console, Partition Magic 8.0 DOS-based diskettes, FDisk and Norton Ghost 2003 DOS-based GDisk failed to overcome a partition table fault.

This is the only HDD I have personally seen expire since a 10MB HDD died in a Mitsubishi PC (with an 8088 for a CPU and wearing a Sperry badge on the outer case) on my desk at work in autumn of 1984 :o

[glb]El Pescador[/glb]
 

odeen


Quote:

I used MBRTool ( http://www.diydatarecovery.nl/mbrtool.htm ) on my Ultimate Boot CD (oooh..  high-capacity reliable optical media) [url=www.ultimatebootcd.com[/url]]www.ultimatebootcd.com[/url] to zap the Volume Bytes on the drive, and all was well.  I still don't know why I was able to do this before WITHOUT needing to zap the Volume Bytes, but at least I have a documented solution.

Thanks for the solution you found, but I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are changing and where in the MBR.

Could you be more specific for the benefit of the members of the forum.

An interesting set of observations contributed by all . . . .

Nonetheless, I have not read anything in this thread that inherently makes the case that imaging from DOS is superior to imaging from Windows, however slight.  If we think about it, one of the following two statements must be true:

Statement #1:  Symantec and Acronis, for whatever reason, are oblivious to the advantages of imaging from DOS, since they continue to develop and promote Windows-based imaging products.

Statement #2:  Symantec and Acronis are fully aware of the advantages of imaging from DOS, and yet choose to manufacture and sell a product based on an inferior technological approach.  The degree of that inferiority may be open to debate, but any small degree of inferiority (however minor) multiplied by a huge user base would yield an enormous quantity of failed restores.  As a consequence, they are knowingly and willfully choosing to jeopardize their brand equity.

Which alternative do you prefer?  [1] Symantec and Acronis are 'dumb,' or that [2] they are 'negligent'?  Since both are clearly foolish, there must be another alternative.  And I believe that alternative is quite simple:  imaging from Windows is no less reliable than imaging from DOS.  Remember:  the fact that you (and I) don't necessarily understand how Windows-based imaging works does not imply that it less reliable.  In other words, our ignorance cannot be the basis for a claim of superiority.

Some specific comments on the insightful observations of the Radministrator:
[1] "popularity does not infer quality":  Very true, but it is rare indeed that popularity exists in the absence of quality – at least for any duration.  Marketplace forces eventually win.
[2] Evidence that Windows-based imaging is "growing in popularity":  Well, consider the obvious fact that Symantec and Acronis have discontinued DOS-based imaging so that it no longer being promoted, and consider that Drive Image reported over a million users (on the product box) before it was acquired by Symantec.  
[3] "Just because you're not aware of any such facts doesn't make it false":  Very true, but I challenge others reading this forum to provide those facts.  What is the relative incidence of failure of DOS-based imaging versus Windows-based imaging?  If other forum members are making the claim that DOS-based imaging is superior, to whatever degree, they ought to provide those facts.
[4] "I believe they [Symantec/Acronis] are motivated by the balance $heet:"  Very true, but the argument that these companies would place a temporary lift in product sales above long-term corporate reputation is foolhardy.  Although such self-destructive behaviors have obviously been done by some firms, the incidence is low.
[5] "you're really reaching now" with respect to "One could argue that because Windows ‘naturally’ reads/writes NTFS volumes but in DOS that’s a slick 'programming trick,' a Windows-based image should be more (not less) stable":  Guilty as charged.

I do agree that the "drop-to-DOS, reboot-to-Windows scheme was fragile" for the faux-Windows imaging products (e.g., Ghost 2003 via Windows); fortunately, that was a brief transition period from the true DOS approach to the true Windows solution for imaging.

To clarify, my argument is not that Ghost 9.0 is superior to Ghost 2003 – only that DOS based imaging is not necessarily superior to Windows-based imaging.  I could, of course, be wrong.  But I do not accept a simplistic argument for that conclusion based upon weak analogies to photography, stereos, and racing pit crews.

Thx for reponding. Your comments are valued.

I think the reason Symantec et al went the Windows route is because it's more USER-FRIENDLY. Would anyone disagree that imaging from Windows is not more user-friendly than imaging from DOS? The average Joe-user does not possess the technical sophistication to image from DOS. Windows-based imaging will make it possible for them to sell more units.

I'm not against their strategy. They need to make a profit. And it's better that people use a Windows-based imager than nothing at all. I'm merely noting that imaging from Windows is inherently less-reliable than imaging from DOS .. for reasons already stated.

I want those who come here, who tend to be more technically sophisticated, to know this. If they still chose to use a Windows-based imager, great! But at least they know.

Being involved in this imaging game since the RAD guide was first published some 5 years ago, I read many threads on the subject, and it's a common theme that Powerquest's Drive Image was less reliable than Ghost. I'd say people chose Ghost 10-to-1 when discussing reliability. I received many emails on the subject, from people looking for help. But I couldn't help them, cuz I've never used Drive Image.

Re: "but it is rare indeed that popularity exists in the absence of quality "

Oh, come now. You're much too intelligent to believe that. I could make a list a mile long of popular junk .. beginning with McDonalds.

Re: "but I challenge others reading this forum to provide those facts"

Well, there is no such datbase. But, like I said, from being in this imaging game for the last 5 years, I have read many threads on the subject, and Ghost has always been the most reliable. But ease-of-use was it's biggest negative.

I mean, have a look at the Acronis forums:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65

.. and see for yourself what a mess of a time those people are having with that piece of software.

Heck, why do you think Symantec did away with their forums before releasing Ghost v9.0?

Re: "the argument that these companies would place a temporary lift in product sales above long-term corporate reputation is foolhardy."

Oh, come now. We know you're too intelligent to take that position. The list is endless, beginning with Enron. Companies *live* for profits. That's what they do. That's their goal in life. It's their reason for existence.

Re: "To clarify, my argument is not that Ghost 9.0 is superior to Ghost 2003 – only that DOS based imaging is not necessarily superior to Windows-based imaging."

I think you need to define what you mean by the (rather subjective) term "superior". If you mean more USER_FRIENDLY, then Ghost 9 is indeed superior. But if you mean RELIABLE (which is what I mean), then DOS-based imaging is superior (for reasons already stated).

R.

Radministrator, I appreciate your continued involvement in this dialog.

Re "imaging from Windows is inherently less-reliable than imaging from DOS .. for reasons already stated":  Except for the discussion which (correctly) states that the operating system files are  not in use when the image is created via DOS, I don't believe that any 'reasons' have been provided:  analogies, yes; reasons, no.  If there are additional technical reasons, please enumerate.

Re "popularity" and "quality":  Allow me to try to communicate this again.  McDonalds is indeed "popular junk", as compared to a more up-scale restaurant.  But that's not the issue.  The point is that if McDonalds were to uniformly produce burnt burgers (i.e., deliver poor quality), then its market share would obviously decline.  Correspondingly, if Symantec/Acronis were to produce mission-critical backup products that didn't work with a very high degree of reliability, they too would suffer a market share decline.  I am not saying that all things which are "popular" are also "high quality", but rather within a marketplace competitive set, "popularity" will not long exist in the absence of "quality".  For a short duration, perhaps yes; over a longer time period, no.  There may exist unique counter-examples (e.g., in conditions where competition is artificially constrained), but the idea I am highlighting is basic to economics, marketing, and business.

Re Acronis forum:  There's an obvious self-selection bias occurring.  The purpose of the forum is to allow users experiencing a difficulty to post a question.  For example, if you view any of the Microsoft Product Communities (http://support.microsoft.com/newsgroups/), you would naturally think that all Microsoft products are all in a "mess."  The same would, I believe, hold true for any product support forum.  Stated differently, I'm not aware of any product forum in which all (or most) of the posts consist simply of glowing reviews.

Re "Companies *live* for profits":  Of course, a company that does not make a profit will not long exist.  Nonetheless, the growing body of research in marketing today strongly supports the thesis that the achievement of short-term profits at the expense of destroying long-term customer equity is a prescription for disaster.  You may to explore the current marketing literature to verify this.  This is not naiveté.  Enron, WorldCom, etc. are not counter-examples:  these involved illegal conduct, and we're not talking about that:  rather, we're talking about building a sustainable business.  To do so, the current best-practice perspective is that customer equity (i.e., satisfaction, retention, lifetime value) is central.

Re "Superior = User Friendly" versus "Superior = Reliable":  My intention was to indicate "reliability" through the use of the term "superior."

Kind regards,
Pleonasm (defined as "the use of more words than are required to express an idea" at www.dictionary.com)

Pleonasm

Ooooohhh--interesting discussion---


Quote:

Nonetheless, I have not read anything in this thread that inherently makes the case that imaging from DOS is superior to imaging from Windows, however slight.

Am I missing something here--or is everyone failing to comprehend the original topic of this thread, i.e. 'Ghost 9.0 restoration problem-Windows boot freeze'.

This is the Ghost 9.x that is:


Quote:

just SAFER, and, since it runs the drives in DMA mode, a lot faster too.

(Safer!!?, and just how fast is a non-booting OS?)


Quote:

There are a lot of things that are EASIER to do with Ghost 9.0,

(Like posting questions about a non-booting OS after using it?)


Quote:

Ghost 9.0 is much too straightforward to warrant the effort of a Rad Guide,

(Again, we're talking about Ghost 9.x that leaves one with a non-booting OS--right?)


Quote:

Except for the discussion which (correctly) states that the operating system files are  not in use when the image is created via DOS, I don't believe that any 'reasons' have been provided:  analogies, yes; reasons, no.  If there are additional technical reasons, please enumerate.

(I have never had a boot failure after cloning or restoring an OS partition using the DOS version of Ghost 2003--is that a database?--an analogy--no, a reason--yes!)


Quote:

if Symantec/Acronis were to produce mission-critical backup products that didn't work with a very high degree of reliability,

(Again, this is a non-booting OS after a restore by Ghost 9.x?)


Quote:

Re "Superior = User Friendly" versus "Superior = Reliable":  My intention was to indicate "reliability" through the use of the term "superior."

(We're still talking about Ghost 9.x that has left odeen with a non-booting OS?)

Now I was glad to hear from odeen that he had found a 'solution' to his problem.

But isn't anyone a little disturbed by how he solved the problem?  He resorted to a third party, DOS based tool that edits the masterboot record.

This is odeen who said the DOS Ghost 2003 software was 'irrepairably broken'.  And he said that because:


Quote:

If you require a third-party guide that tells you to avoid certain functionality (such as images with long names), you fail it.

But, it's okay to use a third party DOS program to edit the masterboot record to correct the failure of the faster, safer, more reliable Windows based Ghost 9.x.

Now, my point is not to criticize Ghost 9.x here--it's actually to point out that the problem that he experienced with Ghost 9.x is still not really resolved.

Now, odeen made this comment:


Quote:

It seems that, even if I force Windows / Ghost 9.0 to NOT assign a drive letter to the drive / partition, some bits end up written to the "Volume Bytes" portion of the MBR.  These bytes are responsible for "sticky" drive letters, i.e. a K: drive that takes the K: drive letter in any machine you stick it in.

I've been wondering since I saw that if odeen was performing a non-standard image procedure that was effecting the ability to restore properly.  Wouldn't you want Ghost to keep your drive letter assignments on a restore of your OS?

And his solution of editing the masterboot record which must force Windows to see that the drive no longer matches the hardware ID it used originally to assign drive letters, it then re-assigns the drive letters--sounds very similar to Dan Goodell's information on how to try to revive a non-booting situation using the 'Kawecki's Trick' using 'fdisk /mbr' under DOS.

See here:

http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm#method3

To assist the reader of this thread in making their own informed decision of whether to use a DOS-based or Windows-based imaging solution, I have attempted to list below the arguments that have been discussed.

The Case Study Argument:  This argument says that since this post is attached to a thread documenting a Ghost 9.0 issue, then a Windows-based imaging solution can’t be as reliable as a DOS-based imaging approach.

The Personal Use Argument:  This argument says that since one specific user has never had a problem using a DOS-based imaging approach, then the latter must be more reliable than a Windows-based imaging solution.

The Ignorance Argument:  This argument says that since we ‘understand’ how a DOS-based image is created, and we don’t really understand to the same degree how a Windows-based image is created, then the former must be more reliable than the latter.

The Complexity Argument #1:  This argument says that since the process of creating a DOS-based image involves less programmatic complexity than that of a Windows-based image, then the former must be more reliable than the latter.

The Complexity Argument #2:  This argument says that since a Windows-based imaging solution is easier to use (i.e., less complex) than a DOS-based approach, then the former must be more reliable than the latter because there is less chance of ‘user error’ in running the application.

The Experiential Argument:  This argument says that since the number of DOS-based imaging issues posted on support forums exceeds those of Windows-based imaging issues, then the latter must be more reliable than the former – even though the absolute quantity of Windows-based imaging users almost certainly exceeds DOS-based imaging users.

The Self-Interest Argument:  This argument says that the brand reputation of Symantec and Acronis is a highly valuable asset, and a choice by those companies to release a ‘new and improved’ imaging solution that was less reliable than the old solution would not be in their own best business interests.

The Market-Share Argument:  This argument says that if a Windows-based imaging solution was less reliable than a DOS-based imaging solution, then the marketplace would come to recognize that fact and consumer purchases would migrate to the more reliable solution.

From my own perspective:
The Case Study Argument:  Extrapolating from a sample size of N=1 is worthless.  I suspect that there does not exist a product – any product – for which 100.0% customer satisfaction exists.
The Personal Use Argument:  This is obviously fallacious, since it does not involve a direct comparison of DOS-based to Windows-based imaging.
The Ignorance Argument:  This can be dismissed as a matter of course.  It holds no merit.
The Complexity Argument #1:  This is perhaps the strongest argument for a DOS-based imaging approach.
The Complexity Argument #2:  This a mild rationale for preferring a Windows-based imaging approach.
The Experiential Argument:  This is a moderate argument for preferring a Windows-based imaging approach.  If the Windows-based imaging technology was less reliable than the DOS-based technology, then that small difference – multiplied by the large installed user base – would result in a plethora of complaints on support forums.  This, of course, is not occurring.
The Self-Interest Argument:  This is a moderate-to-strong argument for preferring a Windows-based imaging approach.
The Market-Share Argument:  Again, this is a moderate-to-strong argument for preferring a Windows-based imaging approach.

On balance, I am not convinced of the truth of the hypothesis that a DOS-based imaging approach is more reliable than a Windows-based solution.  It may be true.  But I, for one, have not honestly heard any facts or arguments that are compelling enough to warrant that conclusion.  “Analogies,” “urban legend,” and “myth” are not, at least for me, very meritorious.

From the perspective of practicality, my own conclusion is that Windows-based imaging is extremely reliable.  Whether it is ever so marginally more-or-less reliable than a DOS-based approach is probably a “distinction without a difference.”  Clearly, neither approach is 100.0% reliable.  If one is 99.90% reliable and the other is 99.91% reliable, then both may be classified in a practical sense as extremely reliable.

From the perspective of reality, the simple fact is that (for better or worse) the DOS-based imaging solutions are rapidly disappearing.  For example, Symantec is no longer directly promoting and selling Ghost 2003 nor is that application officially supported for Windows 2000/XP – but only for the older versions of Windows (see the Symantec Knowledge Base article “Why does Norton Ghost 9.0 come with Norton Ghost 2003?”).

Peace to all who image,
Pleonasm

Pleonasm

I, for one, have still not said Ghost 2003 vs Ghost 9.x, one is better than the other.  I have never used Ghost 9.x--so I can't say anything good or bad about it.  Yes I defended DOS Ghost 2003, but that's because I though it was unfairly put down by odeen.

My point has been that Ghost 9.x, for odeen, has failed to function as advertised--that, for odeen, should represent a significant software failure--but based on his posts, it does not seem to be a 'problem'.  Interesting.  DOS Ghost 2003 did not 'fail' odeen--he just unwittingly used it incorrectly--user error.

The only information I can refer to regarding Ghost 9.x are the posts that have been made here.  This is an unscientific observation, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems most issues with Ghost 9.x have been programming problems--incompatibilities--most of DOS Ghost 2003 issues have to do with user error because they do not understand how to use the DOS OS environment rather than program failure.

Most program failure for DOS Ghost 2003 centers around trying to make this DOS program work with technology that DOS was never designed to work with, and was not designed to work with DOS, especially USB and optical burners.

I think it's informative that these issues can be overcome, if a company puts the necessary research and developement into it--for example the Panasonic DOS USB driver seems to have almost universal compatibility with USB technology while Symantec/Iomega's USB DOS driver is marginal at best.

But why so sensitive?  The fact is that Ghost 9.x is failing in this particular instance--and I've yet to see a satisfactory explanation or solution (that is Ghost 9.x based).

I feel that I have to chime back in and offer my take on the situation.

First of all, I fixed the problem of Windows boot being "stuck" by clearing the volume bytes on the drive using an MBR editor.  So, I have a fully functional hard drive, and I have documented a possibly necessary extra step needed to restore a drive.

I think this only occurs if the following conditions are met:
1) Drive to be restored contains a bootable Windows NT/2K/XP install
2) Drive is not being copied disk-to-disk, but restored from an image
3) Drive is being restored on a third-party computer which already has a C drive.

I think this is more a reflection of the archaic way that a PC handles drive volumes and partitions, and Windows' particular take on the situation.  It'd be nice if Ghost 9.0 had a "This is going to be a C: drive elsewhere" option, but it's a little iffy to assign a C drive letter to a drive if a computer already has a C drive.

Even if I was NEVER able to restore the MBR, I still had ALL my files on the disk, and a repair install, or a fresh XP install + file copy would have gotten me up and running with ALL my files

Why Ghost 2003 failed (in my case):
Pretended to support something it didn't (LFN's)
Did not prompt the user before destroying data
Unable to gracefully recover from partial data destruction

If 2003 told me "Hey, I'm about to generate computer.g01, and you already have a computer.g01, is it okay to overwrite?" and paused for my input, I wouldn't be upset about it.  If 2003 didn't let the user create archives with long file names, only to forcefully truncate subsequent file names (never mind the necessity to split an image up into sections).  But it does, and then, without asking the user, truncates the file names and overwrites, that's not an error on the user's part.  This behavior isn't even mentioned in the manual - and the user can't be expected to account for what they don't know.

The nice thing about Ghost 9.0 is that you are dealing with easily understandable files and drive letters instead of the more cryptic controller/disk designations.  New motherboards support 12+ drives without the need of extra drive controllers - if you have a bunch of identical disks hanging off the controllers, it's a little sadistic of the software to say "So, copy the 250gb drive on SATA3 to the 250gb drive on SATA4?" when the user isn't dealing with the physical drive attachment points on a daily basis.  SATA3 may be my G: drive for games, and SATA4 is M: drive for music - why ask the user to give up their associations and their mnemonics?

Computers are dumb, but they have good memory.  It's a little silly to expect the user to maintain the same kind of registry of what is where when a computer running a proper OS can display that information.  No need to be more cryptic than necessary to the user.

Anyways, what it boils down to is this: Volume bytes in the MBR aren't cleared or set properly by Ghost.  Blasting off the volume bytes using an MBR editor post-Ghost restoration forces Windows to re-create them, and lets a Windows install on what SHOULD be the C drive boot properly.

NightOwl, some further comments:

“Ghost 2003 vs Ghost 9.x, one is better than the other”:  I agree with you, and likewise have not made this claim.  My only point is that no compelling facts or arguments have been posted supporting the conclusion that DOS-based imaging is more reliable than Windows-based imaging.

Ghost 2003 was “unfairly put down by odeen”:  I agree, and previously said so.

“DOS Ghost 2003 did not 'fail' odeen--he just unwittingly used it incorrectly--user error”:  It appears to be so.

“most issues with Ghost 9.x have been programming problems--incompatibilities--most of DOS Ghost 2003 issues have to do with user error because they do not understand how to use the DOS OS environment rather than program failure”:  It’s difficult to make this assessment, but it could be true.  See “The Complexity Argument #1” and “The Complexity Argument #2” in my prior post.

“Most program failure for DOS Ghost 2003 centers around trying to make this DOS program work with technology that DOS was never designed to work with”:  This may be true, but as technologies advance, it would appear that the functionality of Ghost 2003 will become increasingly constrained, despite the fact that it could be otherwise - if the manufacturers of the drivers behaved differently.

“The fact is that Ghost 9.x is failing in this particular instance”:  I agree, but see my prior point labeled “The Case Study Argument”.  A single case (pro- or con-Ghost 9.0) is not a basis for supporting one point of view or the other.

“why so sensitive”:  Gee, I don’t consider myself ‘sensitive’ on this point.  I am, however, quite surprised the ‘vigor’ of the comments of those who believe that DOS-based imaging is more reliable.  I personally don’t see the disadvantage in acknowledging that both DOS- and Windows-based imaging solutions are extremely reliable.  However, there seems to be a contingent of individuals who are, for whatever reason, hesitant to do so.

P.S.:  Thanks for an intellectually engaging discussion!

(Safer!!?, and just how fast is a non-booting OS?)

Yes.  No files were overwritten, and the OS is able to be restored using the MBR fix, repair install, or plain ol' XP reinstall + file copy.  

(Like posting questions about a non-booting OS after using it?)

Which didn't help.  Just sparked a discussion :)

(Again, we're talking about Ghost 9.x that leaves one with a non-booting OS--right?)

But at least it leaves one WITH an OS, as opposed to overwriting it without user intervention.

Ghost 9.0 failure is stupid, but recoverable.  Ghost 2003 failure is CATASTROPHIC and undocumented in materials that ship with the software.

(We're still talking about Ghost 9.x that has left odeen with a non-booting OS?)

We're still talking about a stupid assumption that Windows XP and/or Ghost makes that "R: drive now is R: drive forever and always"  This doesn't apply if you're restoring a system drive in a third-party computer.


Quote:

Now I was glad to hear from odeen that he had found a 'solution' to his problem. But isn't anyone a little disturbed by how he solved the problem?  He resorted to a third party, DOS based tool that edits the masterboot record. This is odeen who said the DOS Ghost 2003 software was 'irrepairably broken'.  And he said that because: But, it's okay to use a third party DOS program to edit the masterboot record to correct the failure of the faster, safer, more reliable Windows based Ghost 9.x.

Ghost 2003 is broken because it did something it didn't tell me it was going to do.  And it did it without giving me a chance to stop it.  The MBR editor gives me a chance to back out before data is overwritten . Ghost 2003 didn't give me that chance.


Quote:

Now, my point is not to criticize Ghost 9.x here--it's actually to point out that the problem that he experienced with Ghost 9.x is still not really resolved.

I think the failure, upon further review, lies with the way Windows handles drive letters.  You can't tell a drive "Go be the C drive somewhere else" without telling to to be the C drive HERE.  And if there's already a C drive, what can the new drive be?

This is a drawback to the Windows way of doing things, though


Quote:

I've been wondering since I saw that if odeen was performing a non-standard image procedure that was effecting the ability to restore properly.  Wouldn't you want Ghost to keep your drive letter assignments on a restore of your OS?

I think what I was doing was reasonable.  I only have one laptop hard drive, and one laptop IDE to regular IDE adapter.  If I can make an image of a CD, then burn it to another CD, I should be able to do the same with a hard drive.

[quote]And his solution of editing the masterboot record which must force Windows to see that the drive no longer matches the hardware ID it used originally to assign drive letters, it then re-assigns the drive letters--sounds very similar to Dan Goodell's information on how to try to revive a non-booting situation using the 'Kawecki's Trick' using 'fdisk /mbr' under DOS.[/q]

fixboot and fixmbr didn't do a thing in the recovery console.  Deeper de-gunking of the MBR was needed.  And, since new-ishey laptops no longer come with any provisions for a floppy drive, I couldn't exactly bust out the recovery floppy, or a DOS 6.22 boot disk :)

Stupid, recoverable failure is less severe than non-recoverable failure caused by lack of insufficient controls built into the software.  I don't mind the DOS way of doing things (although the Windows way is easier to manage) but I do mind the data being forcibly overwritten as a result of seemingly PARTIAL LFN support.  Either disable LFN's, or maintain the LFNs through the imaging process.  And give me a chance to say "no" before you overwrite something.

This is a good thread. Nice to see it's not deteriorating into nastiness. I've been involved in such threads (not here, tho) and can get nasty myself.

I went ahead and linked it to the word "controversial" on the 1st page of the guide where I discuss my feelings about Ghost v9.0 and hot imaging.

I like the way NightOwl made his responses yellow. Easier to read/follow that way. I'm a big "readability" freak, always looking for ways to improve there.

Far as "reasons" go, for the DOS based-version of Ghost being more reliable, I too have restored ~2-dozen images over the years (maybe more), and never had a problem (that was Ghost's fault, anyway). I have mislabeled some images when I was tired, but that was my own dang fault.

The key point we're making is that, it's more reliable to image an operating system while it's dormant (shut down). While imaging a "live" operating system (*from* a live operating system) may be (is) more user-friendly, we feel users are best served by using the DOS-based method, even tho it is admittedly more complicated. I mean, it should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

FWIW - I would never use a Windows-based solution to image any "mission-critical" applications. Do you think Amazon.com or E-bay would use a "live" imaging solution. Seems like a sure-fire way to lose you job. For home-use, it might be okay, because the downside is less steep, and the average home-user uses *no* imaging solution, anyway ..

.. which is why Windows-based imaging solutions are great! (for the average home-user) .. just not as good (reliable) as DOS-based ones.  :)

I think we will continue to see problems such as the one which started this thread proliferate with Windows-based imaging. That's just my feeling. Hope I'm wrong.

I admit I'm a "reliability" freak. But that's cuz I have already lost everything. It's a painful lesson. I want the most reliable chipset, the most reliable hard drive, I cool my case cuz that improves reliability. I cool my hard drives. I could go on. But that place where I want the *most* reliability is with my back-up images ..

.. and that's why I feel most comfortable with a DOS-based solution. I have years of trust built up using that method. I have Ghost 9, but don't feel comfortable depending on it, because of the increased chance of being caught with my pants down by some quirky compatibilty glitch.

R.

Quote:

"... I, for one, have still not said Ghost 2003 vs Ghost 9.x, one is better than the other.  I have never used Ghost 9.x--so I can't say anything good or bad about it..." NightOwl

[glb]"... I cannot take it anymore !!!"[/glb]
I really must see for myself what all the fuss is about.  So, I am buying a copy of Norton SystemWorks 2005 Premier ($80 plus shipping less $50 purchase rebate less $30 upgrade rebate) just so I can compare Norton Ghost 9.0 versus Norton Ghost 2003.

Since they are so very different, I wonder if Ghost 2003 can reside alongside Ghost 9.0 on a PC with a single XP Pro O/S.

[glb]El Pescador[/glb]

Radministrator

I agree--only I think it's a great thread--good ideas being thrown around here.  This would have gone down in flames a long time ago on some other forums.

Pleonasm

Thank you for your intelligent input--makes the DOS Ghosters (like me) think a little bit  ;) .

odeen

Aaaahhh--the rest of the story--thank you!  I think we can now understand where Ghost 9.x 'failed' (sorry--take this in the right way, user error   ;) )--and maybe the arguement for why the DOS version of Ghost, at least in this case, may be the better option (or, at least, using the correct procedure when using Ghost 9.x)!

So here goes:


Quote:

Computers are dumb, but they have good memory.  It's a little silly to expect the user to maintain the same kind of registry of what is where when a computer running a proper OS can display that information.

You're exactly right--computers are dumb--they can not fathom what we 'wetware' have in mind for them!

This is a common problem and it effects anyone using Win-NT based OS's with 'sticky' drive letters--both Ghost 2003 and Ghost 9.x will choke if you install a HDD on a live system that gets to 'see' the HDD after booting.  


Quote:

We're still talking about a stupid assumption that Windows XP and/or Ghost makes that "R: drive now is R: drive forever and always"  This doesn't apply if you're restoring a system drive in a third-party computer.

There it is-- as you said, it was assigned a drive letter based on the 'third-party computer' that you installed that HDD on.  Your current live WinXP OS was protecting itself from having another operational OS being installed.  There was no way for the 'third-party computer' to know that you were going to take that HDD out and install it on another system vs try to boot a second installed OS on the same 'third-party computer'.

Okay, you Ghost 9.x users--I do not have a Ghost 9.x user manual--how do they say to handle this situation?  Here's the outline for the Windows Ghost 2003 interface version:

http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ghost.nsf/8f7dc138830563c888256c2200662ecd/fa8111c6f3f5614d88256c23007c0a64?

As I said above--this is probably the best arguement for using the DOS based Ghost 2003 instead of the 'hot imaging' and 'hot restore' of the Windows based Ghost 9.x--but, I suspect there is a procedure for doing just this 'correctly' using Ghost 9.x.

Betting you are supposed to shut down your system, install the HDD,  boot with the 'Recovery Ghost 9.x CD', and restore the image to the added HDD, and then shut down, remove the HDD, and then reboot your system, and install the newly imaged HDD to the other system.  Am I close?

A few more comments:


Quote:

Even if I was NEVER able to restore the MBR, I still had ALL my files on the disk, and a repair install, or a fresh XP install + file copy would have gotten me up and running with ALL my files

You would have had all those files still--if you had not accidentally overwritten them.  That's an unfortunate down side to the learning curve in the DOS OS environment.  I won't argue the point you make that Symantec has not made the use of DOS Ghost a easy, user-friendly program.  You are correct--it does not warn you about overwriting existing files.  Could it?--probably.  And could it use long file names--I don't know about that one.  It seems to be pretty stuck in the DOS 8.3 naming convention.  It is well hidden, but it does in the user manual mention that it will append the xxxxx00x.ghs to the file name.  

I think Symantec has always made the assumption that the users of Ghost are better versed in the DOS OS environment than they really are.


Quote:

I think what I was doing was reasonable.  I only have one laptop hard drive, and one laptop IDE to regular IDE adapter.  If I can make an image of a CD, then burn it to another CD, I should be able to do the same with a hard drive.

What we consider logical and reasonable--may not match up with the requirements of the OS and how it communicates with the HDD's we attach to the system.  The CD is not assigned a drive letter--it only stores data--unlike the HDD that is assigned a drive letter--as well as stores data.


Quote:

fixboot and fixmbr didn't do a thing in the recovery console.

Right!  If you read the information carefully about the 'Kawecki's Trick', you will see that the WinXP's 'fdisk' in the recovery console will not work.  It has to be the Win98 or WinMe 'fdisk' if you want the volume designation overwritten so WinXP is forced to re-assign drive letters.

ADDED LATER:

Many mistakenly hope that Ghost imaging can be used to migrate their OS from one partition to another on the same machine--doesn't work that way!

And many hope that Ghost will allow them to transfer their OS on one machine to another simply by restoring the image from one machine to another--doesn't work that way, either!

El_Pescador


Quote:

Since they are so very different, I wonder if Ghost 2003 can reside alongside Ghost 9.0 on a PC with a single XP Pro O/S.

I've seen in other posts that you can have either the Windows Ghost 2003 or Ghost 9.x--but not both on the same system.  I guess if you try to install one and the other is already present, it uninstalls the other for you.

Quote:

"... You are correct--it does not warn you about overwriting existing files... NightOwl

There is a related phenomena here that folks should beware of - naming convention gone awry, i.e., when performing a weekly Norton Ghost 2003 "disk-to-image" overwrite using the same file name repeatedly, I have found on occasion that the very last segment will have the fatal error of a datestamp from the previous week due to reductions in the total volume on the source disk.

I am reluctant to merely delete any or all of the segments targeted for overwriting as I am fanatical about "tidying-up and defragging" prior to a Ghost 2003 BackUp.  Instead, I use Norton WipeInfo to zap the last segment (highlighted), i.e., 8100Disk.gho, 8100D001.GHS, 8100D002.GHS ... 8100D005.GHS, 8100D006.GHS and then doublecheck later on to ensure all segments have the same updated datestamp.

[glb]El Pescador[/glb]

Radministrator, permit me to add a few additional observations to your comments and ask some questions:

“The key point we're making is that, it's more reliable to image an operating system while it's dormant (shut down)”:  Radministrator, I am curious:  In your opinion, how reliable is DOS-based imaging (e.g., 90%, 95%, 99%)?  And, correspondingly, in your opinion, how reliable is Windows-based imaging?

“Windows-based imaging solutions are great! (for the average home-user) .. just not as good (reliable) as DOS-based ones”:  The statement could be true, but simply asserting that it is true is not the same as providing thoughtful supporting facts and arguments – which are indeed lacking, from my perspective.  I believe that the readers of this thread would appreciate the latter more than the former, so that they may formulate their own conclusion.

“DOS based-version of Ghost being more reliable”:  It’s outstanding that you have had excellent success in using DOS-based imaging in about 24 instances.  It does not follow, however, that your success would have been any less outstanding if you had been using a Windows-based imaging solution instead.  Being intellectually honest, don’t you agree?

“I think we will continue to see problems such as the one which started this thread proliferate with Windows-based imaging”:  Well, looking back to the days of Drive Image 7.0 through today, the prediction certainly doesn’t seem to be supported.  Don’t you concur?

“Do you think Amazon.com or E-bay would use a ‘live’ imaging solution”:  Yes, of course!  To whom do you think the Symantec LiveState Recovery Advanced Server (http://sea.symantec.com/content/displaypdf.cfm?pdfid=35) is being sold?  The companion product, Symantec LiveState Recovery Manager, “provides centralized, policy-based system and data protection management for data centers, distributed computing environments, and remote locations. With a consolidated view of enterprise-wide backups, IT administrators can monitor thousands of remote systems and quickly resolve problems using comprehensive reporting to maintain information availability.”

Kind regards,
Pleonasm

P.S.:  It's a sincere pleasure to interact on this forum with others who are so very insightful and considerate.

Radministrator


Quote:

FWIW - I would never use a Windows-based solution to image any "mission-critical" applications. Do you think Amazon.com or E-bay would use a "live" imaging solution. Seems like a sure-fire way to lose you job. For home-use, it might be okay, because the downside is less steep, and the average home-user uses *no* imaging solution, anyway ..

I don't know much about the 'server' side of things--but I've seen reference to 'hot backups' using 'shadow copy' by IT folks on servers.

Also, when you use the WinXP Backup program to do a 'System State' backup--it shows in one of the info screens that it is using 'Shadow Copy' to back up the System State.

This backup, to my knowledge, is the only 'full' registry backup available within Windows, and it's occurring in 'hot, real time'.

"In your opinion, how reliable is DOS-based imaging (e.g., 90%, 95%, 99%)?  And, correspondingly, in your opinion, how reliable is Windows-based imaging?" Well, we all know what opinions are worth. So I will give you something better: my personal *experience*. Of the two-dozen (or so) images I've restores, not one gave me a problem. I did run into the naming-convention problem mentioned earlier (DOS 8.3 file limitation), but never needed to restore that image. So, I would have to say, in my *experience*, DOS-based imaging is 100% effective. (I'm talking *restores* here.)

For Windows-based, I don't know, cuz I've never used it. But I would say "something less than DOS-based imaging".

Re: "The statement could be true, but simply asserting that it is true is not the same as providing thoughtful supporting facts and arguments – which are indeed lacking, from my perspective.  I believe that the readers of this thread would appreciate the latter more than the former, so that they may formulate their own conclusion."

That's what this thread is all about. We are sharing are *experiences*. Obviously you can provide no hard data that supports Windows-based imaging is more reliable than DOS-based imaging. I believe the casual reader of this thread will be able to make an intelligent decision regarding which method best meets their needs.

I feel that the user who is more interested in *reliability* will adopt/maintain the DOS-based method, and the user who prefers EASE-OF-USE will use the Windows-based solution.

RE: "It’s outstanding that you have had excellent success in using DOS-based imaging in about 24 instances.  It does not follow, however, that your success would have been any less outstanding if you had been using a Windows-based imaging solution instead.  Being intellectually honest, don’t you agree?" Well, what follows is that Windows-based imaging can't be any *more* reliable. And this is the angle we are working here: that DOS-based imaging is MORE RELIABLE than Windows-based imaging. How much more reliable? We honesty don't care.

Re: "Well, looking back to the days of Drive Image 7.0 through today, the prediction certainly doesn’t seem to be supported.  Don’t you concur?" Oh, not at all. Like I said, being involved in this imaging game for several years now, I have reads hundreds of threads on the topic, from forums all over the Net, and it is a consistent theme that Drive Image in particular is less reliable than Ghost, which is why I'm surprised Symantec adopted it.

In the back of my mind, I kinda figured they were gonna sell a "new version" (Drive Image repackage as Ghost v9.0 ) to the consumer and then market the original Ghost product to businesses for mission critical applications, because it *is* more reliable, after jacking up the price, cuz businesses are willing to pay more than home users.

Indeed, isn't that what has occurred? Hasn't Symantec retained the ORIGINAL Ghost for the Enterprise solution? Or have they also marketed the Drive Image version for Enterprises also. Or, am I wrong? Is the "Corporate" version of Ghost now also based on Drive Image? I would be very surprised if it is.

I honestly can't believe anyone who has read more than a few dozen threads around the web on imaging programs doesn't know that nearly everyone considers Ghost more relaible than Drive Image. I mean, I thought it was common knowledge. Guess I was wrong.

Regarding the live-state back-up software, I am no expert. BUt that doesn't seem to be an "imaging" solution, but rather a data back-up solution. Does that program/utility back-up the OPERATING SYSTEM, or just data files? Either way, I' sure it's not based on Powerquest's Drive Image.

Ditto on the considerate interaction kudos.

Radministrator, if I understand you correctly, [1] “we are sharing our experiences,” [2] you admit to having no experience with Windows-based imaging, and [3] you conclude that DOS-based imaging is more reliable.  My intention is not to be rude, but isn’t this a rather shallow point-of-view?

You are entitled to your opinion, and I do respect it.  You are not entitled, however, to assert your belief as a statement of fact.  From my perspective, a more appropriate discourse from you might instead say:  “In my experience, DOS-based imaging is highly reliable.  For reasons X, Y, and Z, I am speculating that Windows-based imaging is less reliable, but that may not be the case.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge no one has been arguing that Windows-based imaging is more reliable than DOS-based imaging – only that the former is not necessarily less reliable than the latter:  and, truth be told, the reality is most likely that both are essentially equally reliable.

To the general forum community, I encourage you to ask these questions:

• Could it be that the manufacturers of Windows-based imaging products simply have not achieved the elevated state of technical enlightenment experienced by those who only use DOS-based imaging, and are therefore ignorant of the wisdom of using DOS-based imaging?
  

• Could it be that the manufacturers of Windows-based imaging products are today knowingly and willfully promoting and selling an imaging solution which is less reliable than the product it replaced, and in the process risking their brand reputation?
  

• Could it be that the enterprises that have adopted Windows-based imaging for the backup and recovery of their critical servers and their PCs are all mistaken in their belief concerning the reliability of the approach?
  

• Could it be that the growing population of individual users of Windows-based imaging are misguided in their expectation that they have a highly reliable backup?
  

Be honest:  now, doesn’t it at least seem a tiny bit unlikely the above statements are collectively true?  Doesn’t this at least generate reasonable doubt on the hypothesis that Windows-based imaging is less reliable than DOS-based imaging to a meaningfully important degree?

Well, maybe all the individual PC users, all the professional programmers at Symantec and Acronis, and all the enterprises using Windows-based imaging are defective in their estimation of the reliability achieved by this technology.  And, maybe the small cohort of DOS-based imaging advocates are right.  It could be the case - but, the preponderance of argument suggests that it is not reasonable to assume that it is the case.

Well wishes to all,
Pleonasm

"In your opinion, how reliable is DOS-based imaging (e.g., 90%, 95%, 99%)?  And, correspondingly, in your opinion, how reliable is Windows-based imaging?"

Pleonasm, I've used DOS-based Ghost from 2001-present.  I've used DOS-based DriveImage 1998-present (since v2.0).  Regarding a related product, I've used DOS-based PartitionMagic 1994-present (since v1.0--boy, that one was primitive).  

On average, I either create or restore images at least once/day.  (I maintain lots of computers, and also do lots of software testing where being able to restore to pre-test condition is invaluable.  I also let my kids throw their computers at Napster and Kazaa, which means they have to be restored to virus-free condition frequently.)  Some days I won't do any, but other days I'll do a dozen restores.  I suppose that puts me somewhat over 1000+ overall.  

I'm probably more cautious than the average person, but I've never had an imaging failure.  Zero.  Not counting human error, I've had one PartitionMagic failure in 11 years.  (As an aside, it just blows me away how many people expect to be able to use PartitonMagic from within Windows to move or resize their Windows partition!)

I can't give you personal experience on Windows-based imaging as I don't use it myself.  My only experience has been cleaning up messes when friends/clients get themselves into trouble--perhaps 20 cases overall over the years.  In most of those cases, the person had been using the Windows interface of a DOS-based version.

IMHO, the jury is still out on hot-imaging.  After all, despite the version number, it is a new product.  I feel it's better than the older pseudo-Windows versions, but can't imagine how it could be better than my experience with DOS-based imaging.  (Except for device support, which is the DOS versions' Achilles Heel.)

"If 2003 told me "Hey, I'm about to generate computer.g01, and you already have a computer.g01, is it okay to overwrite?" and paused for my input, I wouldn't be upset about it."

odeen, just as a point of technical clarification, it's DOS that truncates the filename, not Ghost.  In pure DOS, even if you do something basic like "copy  sample.txt  computer25.txt", DOS quietly truncates it to 8.3 format and doesn't call it an error.  That's the way DOS has always worked (at least as far back as DOS 2.10, which is as far as my experience goes).  

If you were using the DOS interface of v2003, you could have typed "computer25.gho" for the filename, Ghost wouldn't call it an error because DOS doesn't call it an error, but you would have been warned that you were about to overwrite.  Not because Ghost checks the filename--it's passing 10.3 to DOS, DOS quietly truncates to 8.3, and tells Ghost "Cool.  By the way, can I overwrite?"  So Ghost relays the question to you.  Along the way, nobody tells you it's gonna truncate, but it does warn you you're about to overwrite.

Unfortunately, from the Windows interface, the DOS operation is scripted in order to eliminate user feedback while in DOS.  Ghost doesn't know it's about to overwrite because it has always counted on DOS to tell it if that's gonna happen, but DOS is bound and gagged because it's scripted.

So your grievance is entirely legitimate.  If the makers of Ghost are gonna tack on a Windows interface, the user has a legitimate right to expect that Windows filenames are acceptable because ... well, the user is in WINDOWS!  Ghost's Windows interface bears an extra burden of responsibility to predict what will happen when it goes to DOS.  It cannot (well, should not) rely on the operating system to warn it.  Since the Ghost task is being scripted in Windows, the operating system doesn't know LFNs will get truncated because Windows doesn't know Ghost plans to reboot into DOS to do its work.  

So, I think you're basically right.  However, I prefer to differentiate--Ghost 2003 isn't broken, only the Windows interface is.

"My intention is not to be rude, but isn’t this a rather shallow point-of-view?"

Well, it's certainly a point of view, altho I wouldn't call it "shallow".

You are not entitled, however, to assert your belief as a statement of fact.

Where am I asserting my opinion as fact? On the first page of the Ghost guide, where I talk about Ghost 9, I say it's "controversial". That means there are other opinions (controversy). And I say *why* it's controversial (hot imaging).  I go on to say: "many (including myself) feel that imaging a live operating system introduces risks that are better avoided by using the original Ghost product (v2003)". Notice the word "feel". Feel = opinion. Nowhere do I spout my beliefs as gospel. If you've read many any of the guides, you know I'm releuctant to do that.

I also said, "I feel Ghost v2003 is more reliable than Ghost 9." Then immediately stipulated that "Some disagree." .. and linked to your comments. I also linked to this very thread so readers could see for themselves where the contentions lie.

"For reasons X, Y, and Z, I am speculating that Windows-based imaging is less reliable, but that may not be the case."

Is this not what I have done?

"Correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge no one has been arguing that Windows-based imaging is more reliable than DOS-based imaging – only that the former is not necessarily less reliable than the latter:  and, truth be told, the reality is most likely that both are essentially equally reliable."

Well, now you're guilty of your own criticisms of me. You used the word "truth" in your statement "both are equally reliable". I never did that. I stated my feelings and gave my reasons for them. I never used the word "truth" when discussing my position. And BTW - I think you're wrong about them being equally reliable.

Could it be that the manufacturers of Windows-based imaging products simply have not achieved the elevated state of technical enlightenment experienced by those who only use DOS-based imaging, and are therefore ignorant of the wisdom of using DOS-based imaging?

I feel it has nothing to do with technical enlightenment, but rather profit margins. The DOS interface is intimidating to many. I can understand this. A Windows-interface makes imaging more user-friendly. Symantec et al can sell more units if people can figure out how to use the product easier. Does that mean it's more reliable? I don't think so. But will it make the bean-counters at Symantec happy? You betcha.

Best regards.
R.

I have one more question you didn't address.

The Corporate version of Ghost:

https://enterprisesecurity.symantec.com/Content/TrialwareForm.cfm?ProductID=3&Promocode=ESTrialware&SSL=YES

Is this now also based on Drive Image? or is it still based on the original Ghost program, the one developed by Binary Research?

You seem to know a lot about Symantec products. Do tell.

Dan, your success with DOS-based imaging is quite impressive:  over 1,000 successful restores!  In a similar vein, Radministrator reported about 24 - which is still very noteworthy.

Consider the following scenario.  Suppose that hypothetically “John Smith” adds a post to this forum later today in which he reports successfully having created and restored 10,000 Windows-based images over the years (e.g., using products such as Drive Image 7.0, True Image 8.0, and Ghost 9.0) – an order of magnitude more than your own experience.  Let’s assume that the post is both truthful and authentic.

Here’s my question.  With this new information provided by “John,” would you now accept the thesis that Windows-based imaging is no less reliable than DOS-based imaging?

If the answer is “yes,” then welcome to the team!   ;)

If the answer is “no,” then I wonder why your (or the Radministrator’s) lower quantity of successful DOS-based image restores would be used as evidence of (or an argument for) the superior reliability of DOS-based images over Windows-based images.

This is an example of what I previously labeled “The Personal Use Argument.”  It is indeed interesting, but it is not relevant to supporting or defeating the hypothesis that Windows-based imaging is more or less reliable than DOS-based imaging.

For however many successful DOS-based restores that can be documented, I suspect that it could be matched by an equally large number of Window-based restores (although, admittedly, no such dataset exists).  As a consequence, such comparisons do not help resolve the question of whether Windows-based imaging is more or less reliable than DOS-based imaging.

Your post, Dan, does add credence to the (already acknowledged) viewpoint that DOS-based imaging is reliable.  I don’t believe, however, that this viewpoint is being challenged.  And, certainly, no one is claiming that Windows-based imaging is more reliable – only that it is not necessarily less reliable.

You're resorting to "hypotheticals". [We got him on the ropes now  :) ]

Uh, on the oft-repeated question of whether the Corporate version of Ghost is still based upon the original Ghost software, or whether that too is now based on Drive Image  (like the Home-user version), can you comment? Are you avoiding the question because it *is* still based on the Binary Research version, or do you simply not know?

I suspect it *is* still base on the original Binary Research product because Corporations demand more RELIABILITY than the average home user, and Symantec doesn't feel comfortable marketing Drive Image to corporations. (And indeed, I feel this is a wise decision, for I too would not be comfortable).

You make it sound like there is no data at all on the subject of reliability of Drive Image vs Ghost. While there is no *compiled* database, I've read *hundreds* of threads over the years on the subject (making it my business to stay informed), and the general consensus is that Ghost is far more RELIABLE than Drive Image.

Again, I feel Symantec is sacrificing RELIABILITY for Ease-of-use (to drive $ales). I don't fault them for this. It's the right thing to do for a business enterprise that needs to make a profit. I merely think the end user should know what they're sacrificing when they use Ghost 9 (Drive Image), Windows-based imaging software.

Here's where we disagree: you say Windows-based imaging & DOS-based imaging are equally reliable. We say DOS-based imaging is logically & experientially more reliable than Windows-based imaging (cuz the O/S is dormant while the image is being created & for reasons previously mentioned).

Your comments are appreciated. You write well, clearly. Well spoken .. (if a bit mis-guided  ;) )

Radministrator, some additional feedback on your comments:

“Where am I asserting my opinion as fact?”:  I am reacting to two prior posts in which you said [1] “We're simply saying that it's NOT AS RELIABLE as imaging from DOS,” and [2] “imaging from Windows is inherently less-reliable than imaging from DOS.”  It sure seems that the statements express an option asserted as fact.  Nonetheless, in fairness, I do acknowledge that you have appropriately linked this thread to the “controversial” term in the Ghost Guide.

“You used the word ‘truth’ in your statement ‘both are equally reliable’”:  Technically speaking, you’re right – but only because you did not present the full context of the comment which was “truth be told, the reality is most likely that both are essentially equally reliable”.  Note the phrase “most likely” – it was intended to convey my own personal opinion of the situation.  It most definitely is not a claim that I know “truth” (in this or in any other matter).  My apologies if it appeared otherwise.

“Does that mean it's more reliable?”:  I believe that the following has already been stated about ten times, but I will repeat again:  no one is claiming that Windows-based imaging is more reliable than DOS-based imaging – only that it is not necessarily less reliable.

“nothing to do with technical enlightenment, but rather profit margins”:  It is theoretically possible (but not commonsensical) that a company would, on the one hand, be market-focused and customer-centric and, on the other hand, manufacture and sell a technically less reliable product.  It could occur, but it would represent a significant misalignment of business strategy and manufacturing.

“The Corporate version of Ghost”:  I have no ‘inside’ knowledge on this subject, only what I have read on the Symantec website and elsewhere.  The Symantec LiveState Recovery Advanced Server is described as the “formerly V2i Protector Server Edition,” and thus appears to be a derivate of the Drive Image technology.  A key feature is described as “create real-time 'while you work' backups” – what you and I would call “hot imaging.”  It also does not appear that Symantec has discontinued the sale of the corporate version of the old Ghost, which obviously would not make good business sense.

Kind regards,
Pleonasm

I am reacting to two prior posts in which you said [1] “We're simply saying that
(I'm really digging this yellow thing.) The words "We're saying" imply an opinion .. as in "We assert our opinion to be ... ." Hard to believe you feel I'm promoting my opinion as fact when I have tried hard to make it clear that it is only my opinion. On the other hand, you use words like "truth" and "reality" in your statements, which are words typically used with factual data. In this respect, you ssem to be using a verbal slight-of-hand .. using words that are both definitive & conditional in the same sentence. This might confuse the casual reader. (I had a class in "Logic" in college, so I'm sentitive to these subtle persuasions.)

Nonetheless, in fairness, I do acknowledge that ... Thx for tossing me that bone. I feel like I earned it.

It is theoretically possible (but not commonsensical) that a company would,

It's *entirely* commonsensical, because that's what companies do: they make profits. It's their lifeblood. If Symantec could triple sales, while at the same time tripling support calls, would that be in their best interest? Of course! Notice that Symantec no longer has their forums. They shut them down. Why do you think this is? Do you feel this was a "customer-centric" decision? (I certainly don't.) Support calls are now $30 per incident.

Radministrator, some additional feedback on your comments:

“I've read *hundreds* of threads over the years on the subject… and the general consensus is that Ghost is far more RELIABLE than Drive Image”:  This is why the United States has Democrats and Republicans.  Different individuals can look at the same set of ‘facts’ and arrive at very different conclusions.  I suspect that I read the same forums as you (albeit maybe not as frequently), and I don’t see that the quantity of observed problems with DOS-based imaging is less than the quantity of observed problems with Windows-based imaging (even though the number of Windows-based imaging installations is likely greater).  From the latter, I am excluding, of course, the faux-Windows approaches which involve a Windows front-end to a DOS product.

“Here's where we disagree”:  Yep, I agree that we disagree.  ;)  

“We say DOS-based imaging is logically & experientially more reliable than Windows-based imaging”:
[1] Who number among the royal “we”?
[2] Your statement may be true.  However, I personally have not read anything herein that indicates that it is true.  And, there is a substantial set of arguments to be made suggesting that it is not true, as I have attempted to articulate in my prior posts.

Kind regards,
Pleonasm

and I don’t see that the quantity of observed problems with DOS-based imaging is less than Didn't think you would.  ;)

Okay, I feel we both made our case and the bones of contention have been picked clean. Let the reader make his own decision.

Radministrator, some additional feedback on your comments:

“’We're saying’ imply an opinion”:  I didn’t read it that way, but I do accept your explanation that you intended it to be an opinion.

“If Symantec could triple sales, while at the same time tripling support calls, would that be in their best interest?  Of course!”:  Radministrator, I am sorry to say, this view of marketing is at least 10 years out of date with the current mainstream thinking as taught in the top business schools.  I recommend that you enter the search terms “Customer Relationship Management” or “Relationship Marketing” into Amazon.com, and you’ll find many hundreds of books that argue the exact opposite of your thesis.  You can generate more profits by sacrificing product quality or customer satisfaction today, but you can’t generate organic business growth tomorrow by so doing.  You will find it exceedingly difficult to cite an authority that disagrees with this viewpoint.

Kind regards,
Pleonasm

“Okay, I feel we both made our case and the bones of contention have been picked clean.  Let the reader make his [or her] own decision”:  At last, something upon which we both agree!

Peace,
Pleonasm

"Dan, your success with DOS-based imaging is quite impressive:  over 1,000 successful restores!"

As I write this, I've got a client's desktop on the workbench right now with an image restore in progress.  (Not Ghost, though, this one's BootIt NG--yet another "outside-of-Windows" imager.)

I carry around a small DOS bootable CD with the DOS versions of PartitionMagic 8, DriveImage 2002, Ghost 2003, and Savepart 2.91.  (BootIt NG is on a separate bootable CD because that's not a DOS program.)  What I use depends on what the client has.  If he's purchased a legitimate license to Ghost (whether or not he's installed it), I'll use Ghost on my boot CD when working on his system.  If he's purchased none of the above, I use the freeware Savepart.  For me, it's a tremendous time savings not to have to install something or wait for Windows to boot to use something.

BTW, in the past two weeks I've done about 30 restores on a single computer.  On my own time, above and beyond what I've done during the workday.  Why would one computer need 30 restores?  See here, and perhaps you'll get the idea how it's been used:

www.goodells.net/dellutil/


"Suppose that hypothetically “John Smith” adds a post to this forum later today in which he reports successfully having created and restored 10,000 Windows-based images over the years (e.g., using products such as Drive Image 7.0, True Image 8.0, and Ghost 9.0) . . . would you now accept the thesis that Windows-based imaging is no less reliable than DOS-based imaging?"

Absolutely!  It won't even have to be that extreme.  I've read occasional reports of hot-imaging screwups, but as I said, it's still too early for me to see any pattern there.  (Except for DI 7--that quickly earned a reputation as a debacle; they didn't discover until after it was released that it couldn't even write to CDR!)  I've personally had none to clean up so far--few of my friends/clients have made that move yet.

Quote:

"... (Except for DI 7--that quickly earned a reputation as a debacle; they didn't discover until after it was released that it couldn't even write to CDR!)... Dan Goodell

Am I being somewhat rational or totally irrational for being exceedingly leary of Norton Ghost 9.0 due to my belief - well-founded or ill-founded - that Ghost 9.0 is a direct lineal descendant of PowerQuest Drive Image 7.0x.

[glb]El Pescador[/glb]

Depends who you ask.

I say: rational.

You might be interested in knowing that the Symantec Knowledge Base contains 413 support articles for Ghost 2003 – but only 90 for Ghost 9.0.

Therefore, it would seem that Ghost 2003 is 4.6 times more problematical than Ghost 9.0, wouldn’t it?  For the sake of argument, let's assume the ratio is only half that amount.  Wouldn't the conclusion nonetheless be the same?

To one and all, I say:  may you never need a backup, may the winds of Microsoft blow gently upon your back, and may the pure light of Symantec guide your way on.  :)

Kind regards,
Pleonasm

" but only 90 for Ghost 9.0"
Give it time.

"the winds of Microsoft"
When the winds of Microsoft blow, it's time to take cover.

Okay you 'Huffers and Puffers'

I thought you had finished exploring the finer 'Symantec' points of WinXP Ghost 9.x vs DOS Ghost 2003--

But the fact remains that the original issue of this thread has not been resolved in a manner other than a third party, DOS based, masterboot record editor--that based on odeen's criteria, makes Ghost 9.x 'irrepairably broken', but at least 'recoverable from' software.

This is not an uncommon situation where someone wants to put a HDD on another machine which has an open HDD connector in order to restore a backed-up image file, and then putting that HDD back on the system it came from.

Are there no Ghost 9'ers out there who have done this successfully who can share the correct procedure to avoid the no-boot problem because Ghost 9.x has to operate under WinXP, and WinXP assigns a drive letter to the HDD when the system is booted, and that drive letter follows the HDD back to the other machine causing a no-boot situation?

According to Pleonasm, he's convinced that there are more Ghost 9'ers out there than there are DOS Ghost 2003'ers--where are they!?  They don't seem to answer the call for help.

NightOwl, I’m only speculating, but maybe there are fewer Ghost 9.0 users visiting this support forum because in general they are having fewer problems?  As I’m sure you will agree, most individuals who visit a support forum only do so when they experience a problem.

My speculation is really not as hard to believe as you might think.  Here is a fun experiment to try.  Go to Google and search within “Groups” for (A) “Ghost 9.0” and (B) “Ghost 2003.”  As you know, this inquiry searches a broad range of user forums and communities.  These forums and communities, by and large, contain user initiated questions & answers.  Want to guess how many ‘questions’ you’ll uncover for Ghost 9.0?  The answer is 2,180.  Now, how about Ghost 2003?  Would you believe that the answer is 19,000 – an 871% increase?

Please forgive my language, but a Web search by Google of “Ghost 9.0 sucks” returns zero results.  Amazingly, there are no recorded instances on the world wide web of "sucks" directly associated with "Ghost 9.0".  None.  On the other hand, a search of “Ghost 2003 sucks” returns 37.

Don't you agree that these results are consistent with the fact that the Symantec Knowledge Base contains 460% more support articles for Ghost 2003 than Ghost 9.0?

Finally, consider that in January, 2005 the readership of Redmond Magazine (comprised of IT professionals) voted Ghost 9.0 “the Best of the Best” with 59.5 percent of the vote - "a landslide victory," according to the magazine editors - and "the largest percentage of votes of any product in any category" (see http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=89422&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=661907&highlight=).  IT professionals prefer Ghost 9.0.  Are they collectively mistaken in their assessment?

Which community – Ghost 9.0 or Ghost 2003 - is experiencing greater reliability?  I will defer to the judgment of the readers of this post.

Kind regards,
Pleonasm

Pleonasm


Quote:

I thought you had finished exploring the finer 'Symantec' points of WinXP Ghost 9.x vs DOS Ghost 2003--

Guess not!  ;D

As the Radministrator said, the "bones of contention have been picked clean."  ;)

I have sent an email to Symantec support asking for technical information on "hot imaging" and why that may be more or less reliable than DOS-based imaging.  As you know, a response may or may not occur, and the resulting content may or may not be valuable.  Nonetheless, if I learn anything, I'll certaintly share it with the forum.

I do recall seeing a quasi-technical document on this subject once before (on the Symantec website?), but I can't find it now.

In the interim, we can agree:  "it is far, far better to image than not to image at all."

Cheers,
Pleonasm

FWIW, I just ran into the exact problem odeen described in the first post of this thread, even the 'cycle'of flashing lights on the keyboard as described.  I will try his fix tomorrow.

But odeens criteria for this happening do not apply to my case-
i am not restoring from an image but rather a disk-to-disk clone of a live XP install.

Thank you odeen! The MBRTool fix worked perfectly. Thank goodness I found this thread.

I noticed that the drive I cloned to had a slightly diferent partition structure than the drive with the original windows installation (the original had two primary partitions, and the active partition was the second of these- this is the stupid Gateway "restore partition" configuration. The new drive had a primary and extended partition, and the active was the first of the two). Just for kicks, I tried the process again from the beginning but this time formatting the new drive with exactly the same partition structure as the source drive. This time it was not necessary to use the MBRTool fix. Perhaps a small difference in the drive partitioning as compared to some stored parameter in XP is what causes the volume bytes problem in the copied XP installation, rather than an inherent problem with Ghost 9.0?? Is that a possibility?

Splicesite and Odeen, I'm curious:  Did you try a restore using the system index file (see Ghost 9.0 User's Guide, pages 76-77)?  If so, did this method avoid the problem?

"Thank you odeen! The MBRTool fix worked perfectly ... Just for kicks, I tried the process again from the beginning but this time formatting the new drive with exactly the same partition structure as the source drive.  This time it was not necessary to use the MBRTool fix."

What odeen is calling the "volume bytes" are really the "NT Serial Number", or today more commonly called simply the "Disk ID".  ("Volume" would be the wrong term--volumes are subdivisions of a partition, and the MBR is part of neither a partition nor a volume.)  As NightOwl alluded to earlier in this thread, the Disk ID is explained in detail on my webpage at www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm.  What you are doing manually with mbrtool is the same thing "Kawecki's Trick" does.

Any Windows-based cloner like Ghost 9 has to manipulate the DiskID and/or the drive letter assignments stored in the registry's [MountedDevices] key.  That's just part of the extra complexity demanded when working "from-the-inside" that we've argued about earlier in this thread.  "From-the-outside" cloners don't have that kind of trouble.  But I don't know why v9 didn't handle it correctly in your first instance.

"Perhaps a small difference in the drive partitioning as compared to some stored parameter in XP is what causes the volume bytes problem in the copied XP installation, rather than an inherent problem with Ghost 9.0??"

If that is indeed the cause, I would say that's by definition an "inherent problem" with the product.  I'm not sure that's the case, but it would be interesting if you could test-clone a few more times and see if you could find a pattern to the problem.

Below is an overview explanation of how Ghost 9.0 is able to reliably create a "hot image" from within Windows (provided by Symantec in response to my email inquiry):

• "When the creation of a backup image file is initiated, a virtual snapshot of the partition is taken and stored temporarily in memory, before the image file is created. The imaging product then starts the process of creating a virtual volume image while monitoring the file system for user changes. Any user changes that overlap with the V2i volume capture process are still written to the hard disk in normal fashion. Because V2i saves the old overwritten data to memory, this avoids interference with the new data. The older data is then written to the backup image file."  (http://service1.symantec.com/Support/powerquest.nsf/docid/2004025022659662?Open&src=con_ols_nam)
  

Conceptually, it seems a rather straight-forward process.

Kind regards,
Pleonasm

I figured this was a good place to ask this question because I to am having the same problem. I am trying to restore Windows XP pro sp v.2149. Let me explain what I have first and trying to accomplish. I have 2 hard drives in my computer. One at 15 gig (C:) (no partitions) and the other at 120 gig ( D:, E:, F:, etc) divided into 25 gig partitions each. I ran ghost 2003 in DOS and did an image of C: using the PARTITION option. I placed that image on E: of the second hard drive. I then went to restore it on D: which went fine I also did an integrity check before restoring. I then open my computer and disconnected all cables from C: (15 gig) in hopes of having my second hard drive get bumped to C: in booting up. I turn the computer on and waiting for it to boot to my dismay I got stuck at the login screen with nothing happening, not even no hard drive action from the LED.
My question is I figure it may be the MBR as what I read from this thread. But I do not want to chance messing with the MBR on that drive due to all other important information I have on the other partitions of that drive. Will messing with the MBR mess up the other partitions and will I be able to restore from this drive without having to reinstall Windows XP again? I know I am on the right track but as for windows not booting I am lost when it comes to using the MBR.  I do have a small DOS  program called restorembr.exe. I assume its for DOS but not sure how to use it or if its able to help me with what I am trying to attain. If anyone can give me some type of info that what went wrong with my restore it would be greatly appreciated. Thank You

MaDMAn

What you have attempted to do may make perfect sense to us humans--but, it just doesn't work for NT-based OS systems such as WinXP!

Unlike older OS's based on DOS, where upon each boot, the drive letters are assigned based on a specific set of rules, and if you change the drive positions and types of partitions (primary vs extended), the drive letters change accordingly--on NT-based OS systems, the drive letter assignment is 'sticky', and is remembered between boots.

So, your drive 'D:\' is still drive 'D:\' after you take your other HDD 'C:\' off the system, as are the E, F, G, etc., partitions are still the same as they were.  So when the boot process gets to the point of loading drivers--based on the entries in the registry which point to drive 'C:\', that drive is not found and the boot process chokes.

As always, it's a good idea to have a backup before doing anything that's potentially disasterous!

You may be able to use Dan Goodell's recommendation here:

Kawecki's Trick

Note:  you need to use the newer Fdisk program that works with HDD's bigger than 64 GB's, and you need to be using a Win98se or ME boot disk.  You can find the newer Fdisk program here:

Radified Binaries Downloadable Files

Also, your other drive letters will be reassigned as well, so if your registry points to programs on those partitions--they will not be found--and upon booting, if any are set to automatically load on boot, you will get errors saying the programs were not found.  You can use 'Disk Management' to go back and change the drive letter assignments to correct that issue, if you want, or correct all the registry entries that point to the wrong partition.

Post back with the results of your efforts.

I like to thank you NightOwl for you quick response and effective information. My problem was solved. What I did, was use method 2 in the kawecki trick link you gave me. I first went into the registry deleted all the keys. I then shut down booted in DOS using 98 se boot disk then ran ghost. Did an image then check the integrity of the image and then uncompressed the image to the first partition on my second HDD D:. I then shut down disconnected my first HDD and booted up my second HDD now becoming C: for the first time it booted up and worked well, an exact image of my windows XP was created. Once again thank you NightOwl, for your corrective reply to my problem.

MaDMAn

Thanks for posting back with your results--glad I could help  :) !

Thank you MadMan for bringing up an interesting issue and thank you NightOwl for providing such an insightful link as 'Kawecki's Tricks'.

But after going through the  posts made by MadMan, I could not resist asking - "Why did you not use 'Method 3' instead of 'Method 2' as the former could have got you there quickly without the need for creating the image again when you had already restored an image to Partition D: of Disk 2 ?" The only thing that was left to be done was to reassign the Partition D: as C:/ using 'fixmbr' command.

I ask this just to know if there was a faster solution to the above problem and apologise if I missed anything technical. An answer to this post will certainly provide more insights into the issue.

- Frodo

Hi Folks,
Here is the solution for this boot freeze problem of windows XP after restoring a disc image to another hd in Norton Ghost 9.0 :

Method #3 ("Kawecki's Trick"):
http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm#method3

One way of doing this is to alter or delete the DiskID in the MBR. Since the DiskID is part of the partition signatures, this forces a change in the signatures and previously remembered drive letters can be reassigned because they no longer match valid partition signatures. To easiest way to delete the DiskID is to use a Win98 boot floppy (aka, "Windows 98 Startup Disk"). Boot the computer from the boot floppy, run the command "fdisk /mbr", remove the floppy, and reboot into 2000/XP.

I TRIED THIS METHOD AND IT IS WORKING PERFECT !!!
I have a booting HD and non-freezing Windows XP NOW!
:)

i have ghost 2002 and everything seems to point towards a need for a floppy disk.  Do I need a floppy disk to make a clone?  Many thanks

james radford

Yes, probably--or a bootable CD:

Creating Bootable CD/DVD's Without A:\Floppy Drive

For however many successful DOS-based restores that can be documented, I suspect that it could be matched by an equally large number of Window-based restores (although, admittedly, no such dataset exists).  As a consequence, such comparisons do not help resolve the question of whether Windows-based imaging is more or less reliable than DOS-based imaging