PC World magazine has published a brief test report (dated July, 2005) on Norton Ghost 10 at http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/chart_test_report/0,chid,6094,prodid,26205,00.asp#.

Is Ghost 10 about to be released?  What’s the buzz about new features in version 10?

Pleo, we're counting on you to dig up some facts. Talk to your hombre's at Symantec.

The company I work for started pushing it out the first week in Aug.

I wrote to Symantec customer service & told then that, if they send me a dozen copies, I'd distribute them here, to folks who have much experience with Ghost, so they could get some (free) beta testing.

I can not read well, we started using NAV 10.  Will look and see which version of Ghost the guys have.

Norton Ghost 10.0 is now available.  For a description of new features, see:
  http://www.symantec.com/sabu/ghost/ghost_personal/features.html

P.S.:  Ghost 2003 is included as part of the Ghost 10.0 package.

Pleonasm

Thanks for the heads-up!


Quote:

P.S.:  Ghost 2003 is included as part of the Ghost 10.0 package.

For all us *stone-age* folks still using Win9x / ME flavored OS's--or *Oh my gosh--DOS*!  ;D !

Glad to see Ghost 2003 is included.

Okay, what's the differences / changes?

What is the official release date?

Update: Doh! NightOwl beat me to it. He has the faster fingers.

I wonder if they fixed the BSOD problems some have had with Ghost 9.

It is good to see they did provide a reliable backup, Ghost 2003, just in case Ghost 10 dies.

It seems to me that most of the new functionality in Ghost 10.0 is in support of the mission of "bringing image backup to the masses" through improved ease of use - not a bad goal, indeed.

For myself, the only feature of Ghost 10.0 that seems interesting at this time is its new ability to encrypt (versus simple password protect) the image files.

The Symantec website says that Ghost 10.0 "will begin shipping [the] last week of September."  I'll probably wait and purchase the tool as part of SystemWorks 2006 which has a release date of 19 October 2005 (see http://freshsoftware.net/buy_now_software.php?item_num=53446768&t=comp_software&software_title=NORTON_SYSTEMWORKS_2006).

where are you seeing the words "last week of september"?

Rad, the new features of Ghost 10.0 are documented at http://www.symantec.com/sabu/ghost/ghost_personal/features.html and are summarized below.

• Automatically creates an initial backup schedule based on your computer’s configuration

• Automatically detects storage devices, analyzes your system, and offers “best practice” backup advice during installation

• Automatically monitors and optimizes backup disk space

• Triggers backups on key events, like new program installations or user logins

• Creates new backups on demand with One Button “Backup Up Now”

• Encrypts backups to help keep them secure

• Task-based interface simplifies management and monitoring

• Displays all scheduled backups — plus the degree of backup protection for each drive on your computer — in one convenient view

• One-step setup wizard makes installation and configuration quick and easy

• Begins backing up to Maxtor external drives at the click of a button

The phrase "last week of September" to describe the availability of Ghost 10.0 can be found by selecting the "buy now" > "Purchase" option from http://www.symantec.com/sabu/ghost/ghost_personal/features.html.

* * * * * * * * * *
Clevelandtxus, I too hope that the BSOD problem disappears with Ghost 10.0.  Having said that, however, I must voice my opinion that this difficulty is not necessarily a problem in Ghost 9.0; rather, it very well may be an issue in Windows or in the way that a specific PC is configured.  I realize that for the small handful of individuals experiencing this problem, my point is a distinction without a difference.  Nonetheless, I encourage you to be open to the possibility that the root cause of the BSOD issue resides not within Ghost 9.0 – although, of course, such could be the case (but logically is not necessarily the case).

They must really be proud of the ability to encrypt images, cuz I noticed they listed it twice:

 New! Encrypts backups to help keep them secure.

 New! Encrypts backups to help keep them secure.

They also remove the words "hot imaging" and replaced them with:

Makes backups on the fly, without restarting your system.

Yes, I too noticed the duplication of the new encryption feature in the Ghost 10.0 description.  Either it is a double-dose of encryption - or, more likely, the copyedit department in Symantec needs some quality control . . . .

I think that "backups on the fly" versus "hot imaging" is more descriptive of the functionality (and thus more easily understood) for the typical PC user.  Of course, it's simply a different name for the same thing.

Symantec has published a press release about Ghost 10.0 today which says . . .


Quote:

CUPERTINO, Calif. - Sept. 13, 2005 - Symantec Corp. (Nasdaq: SYMC) today announced the release of Norton Ghost 10.0, one of the most complete, easy-to-use backup and recovery solutions available to consumers today. Scheduled to be available in late September, the latest version of Norton Ghost provides consumers with an effortless and adaptive tool for backing up their entire computer and ensuring quick, easy and convenient file-level or complete system recovery. Norton Ghost 10.0 takes the guesswork, worry and complexity out of backup and recovery. Rather than requiring users to search for the right files and folders to backup - hoping they don't miss favorite photos or critical tax records - Norton Ghost 10.0 captures the contents of the entire drive, including all files, folders, system settings and customizations, ensuring backups are complete every time. With a full backup, consumers can be confident they'll be able to conduct a complete recovery in one easy step after a serious crash, whether it's a few files or folders or their entire system if necessary. "Consumers are more dependent on their computers than ever before, storing valuable files, irreplaceable photos and a library of music that may have taken countless hours to organize. At the same time, system failure, user error, data corruption and malicious code can occur anytime and result in lost files or an irreparably damaged hard drive," said Matthew Moynahan, vice president, consumer products and solutions, Symantec Corp. "Consumers need a solution like Norton Ghost 10.0, which makes backup and recovery of important data and files easy and convenient for users at all levels of computing sophistication." Norton Ghost 10.0 provides personalized protection through best practice storage detection. This unique technology automatically detects when new storage devices are added to the computer and determines which drives should be backed up and which are optimal storage destination locations. New recovery point capabilities focus on points in time rather than images, conforming to the way users think about backup and recovery. Event-triggered recovery points are also provided, enabling users to create personalized recovery points based on user-initiated events. In addition, performance throttling adjusts system resource usage based on present computing needs to more effectively utilize resources when creating recovery points. Another new feature in Norton Ghost 10.0 is the ability to reconcile recovery points, which helps reduce the amount of storage being used by each recovery point set. In the event of an improper system shutdown, such as a power failure or hard reset, Norton Ghost 10.0's reconciliation capabilities allow consumers to continue to perform incremental backups on their system for the same initial base - even when the system's state has changed between baseline and scheduled recovery points. Norton Ghost 10.0 offers a simplified, easy-to-use interface that reduces the complexity of backup and recovery by requiring less interaction and navigation to perform backup tasks. The interface also uses clear words and phrases to ease recovery. Optimized recovery point storage automatically monitors and manages the amount of disk space necessary to store recovery points - a capability unique to Norton Ghost 10.0. Additionally, an enhanced Symantec Recovery Disk interface ensures that recovery is fast and simple by categorizing and organizing tasks associated with recovery. The Symantec Recovery Disk has also been updated to include the widest array of device support possible, alleviating consumers of the worry and hassles of having to build their own "bootable" recovery disk, or worse, not having the proper device support available when they need it most - at critical recovery times. To ensure consumers are provided with optimal data security, Norton Ghost 10.0 includes support for 128-, 192- and 256-bit AES encryption strengths, ensuring stored data is not accessible to unauthorized users. In addition, Norton Ghost 10.0 provides a centralized backup and recovery status that allows consumers to view all drives on a system, the levels of data protection assigned to each and recommendations based on backup activity. Norton Ghost 10.0 works with a wide range of hard drives and removable media, including CDR/RW and DVD+R/RW drives, USB and FireWire® (IEEE 1394) devices, and Iomega® Zip® and Jaz® drives.

Source:  http://www.symantec.com/press/2005/n050913.html

The press release is interesting, especially the discussion of moving away from the concept of images to the concept of recovery points (which can be event-triggered).

Thanks, Pleo.

Some thots:

1. they say: "captures contents of entire drive" - and - "complete recovery in one easy step"

that's an "image". .. which is the most important part of ghost & any imaging prgm .. a good thing.

2. they say "best practice storage detection .. unique technology detects which drives .. should be backed up (system drive, of course) and which are optimal storage destination locations"

I find it strange they felt the need to automate this most basic of functions/decisions: determining which drives to back up and where to store those back-ups.

We back-up our system drive (where Windows resides) and storage the image on a separate hard drive (if we have one), or a CD or DVD disc.

3. I notice they use the word " easy" a lot. Point #2 above would indicate they are trying to make Ghost as easy to use as possible. Ease-of-use is fine, long as they don't sacrifice RELIABILITY in the process .. see point #5 below.

4. They say: "New recovery point capability focus on points in time rather than images."

They seem to be adapting the position similar to Windows "System Restore" with these "recovery points". We have always felt the need to create an image before installing a major service pack, or things like that, or maybe updating drivers.

So again, this seems to be automating practices we have always been using.

5. Re:  encryption.

I don't like the idea of encryption, cuz it infers DE-cryption at some point, which is just another place for something to go wrong.

You probably know that my #1 priority (with regard to images) is RELIABILITY. I need to know I can restore my image should something go wrong with my operating system or hard drive.

If you put a turbo-charger on a car, or have it steered by a new satellite-tracking device, so the car will drive itself while you're sleeping (making it "easier" to use) .. those new features might be oool, but they are simply one more thing that can go wrong, which tends to DECREASE realiability.

6. Re: " reduce the amount of storage space"

reducing the amount of storage space used is not a major factor with the size of today's hard drives, which, the last time I checked, were at 500-GB:

http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/site/en/menuitem.8f07a3c3d3a7a12d92b86b31bac4f0a0/

Rad

It is too early to determine what Symantec is really delivering through these new features, given the absence of any actual experience with Ghost 10.0 by anyone and also given the absence of the availability of an updated User's Guide as of yet.  It's fun to speculate, though.

My sense is that Symantec is targeting the mass of home PC users that are generally clueless about backup strategies and tactics.  For that, I applaud the efforts of Symantec to deliver the benefits of image backup to a larger audience.  For more sophisticated individuals, of course, many of these ease-of-use features are less compelling and will likely not be utilized.

It is a function of personal preference, but I place a high degree of weight upon the security of the information stored on my PC.  As a consequence, I welcome the addition of an encryption feature.  For those users who don't value the privacy of their PC files, then I would assume that they can omit the use of the feature.

I agree that as the number of features for a software product increases, then so too does the risk of a problem arising.  To some extent this can be mitigated by simply not employing those features, if the user so chooses.

I agree that bringing the (back-up) power of imaging to the masses is a good thing .. no matter what hit reliability might take .. especially since they include Ghost 2003 in the retail box (which I *know* is reliable, cuz I used it to restore dozens of images).

A less-reliable back-up image is still FAR batter than no image at all.

So it seems Ghost 10 = Ghost 9 + encryption

so what it symantec doing ? releasing a new version of ghost yearly now ?  geesh.. my pocketbook can't keep up soon

with the exception of ghost 2003, which was released in the fall of 2002, i think symantec has released a new version every year.

I don't like that "Ghost 10 resembles System Restore". SR failed me twice (on Windows ME), didn't do what I was led to believe it would. I haven't touched SR since the second failure (two attempts - that's a 100% failure rate) but was triggered to use Ghost 2003 and to set up my system to make it practical.

(I was actually triggered after the first failure and my Ghost 2003 image saved my butt the second time.)

I don't trust "System Destroy" and have the service disabled. The purchase of Ghost 2003 is a prerequisite for my assistance in building a computer and setting up the system for someone.

Christer

PowerQuest Drive Image 7 added the incremental images feature of PowerQuest v2i Protector and became Norton Ghost 9. Similarly Ghost 10 has features already being used in Symantec LiveState Recovery, Ghost 9’s corporate big brother. I’ve looked through the Symantec LiveState Recovery userguide and found the following.

Event driven recovery points: These are simply an incremental image made to the current backup set triggered by any of the following four events. They are not like Windows System Restore. The user can select which events are desirable. Or choose none.

• Logon
• Logoff
• Application is installed
• Changes to the HD exceed x MB. X is user defined

Advanced Encryption Standard: “This is especially useful if you are storing backup image files on a network and need a high level of security protection against unauthorized access and use.”  There are 128, 192 and 256 bit encryption strengths.
I’ve never used encryption so I don’t understand how this would benefit the home user. Pleonasm, enlighten me.

Performance throttling: “Setting the operation speed may improve the performance of other resource intensive applications that you run at the same time.” This is user selectable.

Reconcile recovery points: This probably refers to “You can reduce the amount of storage space for the backup by consolidating multiple incremental backup images to a single incremental backup image. (The baseline image is still required for a restore.)” Again, it is user selectable.

This unique technology automatically detects when new storage devices are added to the computer and determines which drives should be backed up and which are optimal storage destination locations:       I couldn’t find any information on this feature.

So the terminology has changed. Restore points in time. We know that they are just plain old images. Users of Ghost 9 will only have a few new features to learn and these will be optional.

Rad, concerning your post #17 in this thread, I am disappointed  :( you have already decided that Ghost 10.0 is a "less-reliable back-up" than Ghost 2003 – even before the product has become available.

As Brian has noted in post #21, the new features of Ghost 10.0 are proven functionality within the corporate environment which are now being made available to the consumer environment.  Additionally, to me at least, it seems that most of these new features represent automatic configuration options that simplify the use of the tool rather than substantial changes to the kernel of the tool.

I never said Ghost 10 is not reliable. I merely take the position that DOS-based imaging (Ghost 2003) is (necessarily) more reliable that Windows-based imaging (Ghost (9 & 10) .. for reasons we have already discussed .. (less things to go wrong in DOS, compared to Windows).

Again, I applaud Symantec's goal of bringing the power of back-up imaging to the masses. For most people, Ghost 10 will be the way to go. Any imaging solution is better (far better) than no imaging solution.

I wrote to Symantec asking them to send me a dozen copies of Ghost 10, so I could distribute them to the gurus here, so we could put it thru its paces (and maybe charge our minds), but they wanted me to sign up on some beta-tester thingie.

So I might be persuaded. But for my own back-up images, Ghost 2003 is the only thing that makes me feel warm-n-fuzzy, cuz I have much experience with it, having restored *dozens* of images (without a single glitch).

Ghost 9 & 10 is based on Powerquest's Drive Image. While I concede their superior ease-of-use (Windows-based), I am nevertheless apprehensive about relying on those versions for something as important as backing up my system drive(s).

Rad, I never said that you said "Ghost 10 is not reliable" - only referenced your quote in post #17 that Ghost 10.0 is a "less-reliable back-up" solution than Ghost 2003.

I fully appreciate the fact that you have a "warm-n-fuzzy" feeling about Ghost 2003 based on your experience.  It is indeed a reliable image backup product, with a long history of performing well.

I continue to be in awe, however, that Ghost 9.0/10.0 is labeled as "less-reliable" given the absence of evidence to support that assertion.

Feelings (with or without supporting facts) - that I understand; unfounded conclusions with no supporting facts - that is something I will never understand.

I do not intend to offend, but it may be worthwhile to review the definition of the term prejudice (dictionary.com):

• An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts
  

• A preconceived preference or idea
  

If someone at some points presents a compelling set of facts documenting that Ghost 9.0/10.0 is less reliable than Ghost 2003, then I will certainly concede the point and switch products myself.  To-date, I am unaware of any evidence that would compel a neutral independent observer to reach this conclusion.  A "preconceived preference or idea" ought not to serve as the basis for an assertion, in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Pleonasm

Pleo,

I never said you said I said ..  :)

You, my friend, are *far* from offensive .. especially given my recent legal & domestic tribulations. I wish everyone were as 'offensive' as you. I enjoy the exchange. Iron sharpens iron.

Re: "evidence" ..

.. admittedly I have no experience with Ghost 9 or 10. What I am talking about, and I believe we have already been 'round this coconut tree before, is that

* one product work from DOS (Ghost 2003)
* the other works from Windows (Ghost 9/10, formerly known as Drive Image)

In Windows, you have *many* different processes running. (hit ctrl-alt-del & see). Right now, I have more than 50 processes running.

In DOS, you have relatively few. Only really Ghost itself and .. (who can name the rest?)

Here is my RAD LOGIC >>> the more processes you have running concurrently while an image is being created or restored, the greater chance you have of any one of those processes interfering with (conflicting with) the imaging process (whether creating or restoring) ..

.. which is what makes imaging from DOS so attractive.

To me, this is akin to a mathematical thing, such as "the larger the denominator, the smaller the number" (regarding fractions). Maybe my example suks, but you should get the gist.

What I am saying is that it is necessarily so.

Rad

User Guide

ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/english_us_canada/products/ghost/10/manuals/Ghost_10_User_Guide.pdf

Rad, I think that I now finally understand  your argument that Ghost 2003 is more reliable than Ghost 9.0/10.0.  Unfortunately, I still don’t agree with it.  Allow me to present three viewpoints on your argument that might illuminate the situation.

Viewpoint #1:  DOS is More Reliable
Continuing your analogy, it is quite true that the value of a fraction increases when the numerator is held constant and the denominator decreases.  It is necessarily so, as you say.  Correspondingly, as DOS is simpler then Windows, then it is necessarily so that a DOS-based application for image backup is more reliable than one which is Windows-based, says your logic.

Here’s the difficulty.  The example with the fraction is true not only for one specific set of numerator and denominator values – it is necessarily so for all such combinations.  Correspondingly, as DOS is more simple then Windows, then – based upon this logic - it is necessarily so that all DOS-based applications are more reliable than ones which are Windows-based – whether the application is image backup, word processing, disk defragmentation, communications, etc.

You could adopt this viewpoint that all DOS-based applications are more reliable than their Windows counterparts; however, doing so seems rather peculiar.  The question then becomes:  why are you using any Windows-based applications if they are less reliable – and, if you place the highest priority upon reliability?  Why are you using Windows at all rather than DOS?

Viewpoint #2:  Truth has Consequences
If it is necessarily the case that a DOS-based image backup application is more reliable than one which is Windows-based, then that assertion – if true – must manifest itself in the real world.  The argument – if true – leaves no doubt that observable differences in reliability will occur between DOS- and Windows-based image backup applications.   Given that such is not occurring – at least for a comparison of Ghost 2003 and Ghost 9.0/10.0 – then the merit of the argument is further weakened.

Viewpoint #3:  Prejudice
The same argument you are advancing, Rad, has been used throughout history to justify numerous bizarre conclusions.  I am not suggesting that you personally hold these opinions, but consider that well-respected academics have sincerely suggested that because the male brain in certain areas is more highly developed than that of the female brain, then it is necessarily the case that males will excel in certain subject areas.  (Similar – and equally repugnant - arguments have been made in the areas of race and ethnicity.)   While it is, of course, true that some males excel some females in some subject areas, the differences in brain complexity do not permit one to say that such performance discrepancies will necessarily be true for all males and for all females.  Correspondingly, while one can say that it is possible that a specific DOS-based image backup application is more reliable than a specific Windows-based image backup application (assuming the existence of supporting facts), it is not necessarily true for all such comparisons – even given the fact that there are differences in operating system complexity.

* * * * * * * * * *

Thus, from my perspective, the argument that Ghost 2003 is necessarily more reliable than Ghost 9.0/10.0 because of operating system differences does not succeed.

Pleonasm

I have never had a DOS based program crash--except when I have tried to load or use it *under Windows*!  But, I'm sure there are DOS based programs that may cause crashes.  Especially *game* programs that try to be too much of everything, and try to use a machine not compatible for the complexity of the program.

I have had program conflicts when I try to load multiple DOS programs that want to access the same resources at the same time--but I have to be loading a *complex* DOS bootup so there are multi-threaded DOS programs running at the same time.

Windows, on the other hand...... ;D

But, I must say, WinXP has been the *best* so far in terms of stability--as long as I do not stray from Microsoft's *defaults* too far--so, maybe the fear and distrust of running a critical program in Windows is a *thing of the past*!?

Mr. Pleo.

I must say, I enjoy debating with you, cuz you're obviously intelligent and articulate your ideas clearly.

I have more to respond, but will begin here: You ask,

"The question then becomes:  why are you using any Windows-based applications if they are less reliable – and, if you place the highest priority upon reliability?  Why are you using Windows at all rather than DOS?"

My answer:

Windows programs (GUI-based) are more user-friendly than DOS-based applications. This is why Windows & Mac have become so popular and not many folks use DOS any more.

For all other programs ('cept Ghost & FDISK), I prefer the ease-of-use that the Windows GUI offers.

But when it comes to Ghost, where *reliability* is most important to me, I prefer Ghost 2003, which is DOS-based (which I feel is more reliable, for reasons already stated).

Plus, I already know how to use DOS-based Ghost, cuz I learned how to use it back when that's all there was. So I have no learning curve to overcome, which I would if I was a new user, deciding on using Ghost today.

Here is the crux of my argument: every additional process you have running concurrently while the image is created or restored adds another potential point of conflict. DOS eliminates all Windows-based processes, which makes it (necessarily) more reliable.

Notice that I did not say more user-friendly, cuz it's not more user-friendly. Most people are willing to sacrifice reliability for ease-of-use. For most programs, I agree, but not for my back-up images. Altho I can certainly understand their position.

But the ability to reliably restore an image carries such grave consequences for people, I feel they should be aware of the difference. If they are aware and still choose Ghost 9/10 (Windows-based imaging), I say, "Great!" have at it. But just know that that ease-of-use comes with a cost: lowered reliability.

How much lower? I don't know.

Pleonasm

Just another thought--when it comes to restoring a whole drive, Ghost 9.x seems to lose its *ease of use* status.

You have to load the *Recovery Environment* from the *Recovery Disc* CD, and you have to have separate images for each partition, and have to restore each partition individually.  I'm not sure you can do *whole disk* recovery as a *single* operation or not--can you?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but a majority of issues with Ghost 9.x has not been the ease of creating back up images, but when it comes time to recover and restore those images to their HDD--that seems to be when most folks are reporting problems--now that's a reliability issue!

Rad, I agree with you that the following two statements are true:

• “…every additional process you have running concurrently while the image is created or restored adds another potential point of conflict”
  
• “DOS eliminates all Windows-based processes”

But your conclusion?

• “…which makes DOS-based Ghost 2003 necessarily more reliable”

Notice that you made the jump from “potential point of conflict” to “necessarily more reliable.”  There is a huge gap between potential and necessarily – right?

Here is a second version of the argument which reflects how it should read, in my opinion:

• If “…every additional process you have running concurrently while the image is created or restored adds another potential point of conflict”, and
  
• If “DOS eliminates all Windows-based processes,”
  
• Then DOS-based Ghost 2003 is potentially more reliable than Windows-based Ghost 9.0/10.0.

I completely agree that Ghost 2003 is potentially more reliable than Windows-based Ghost 9.0/10.0, but I don’t agree that the former is necessarily more reliable than the latter.

If you concur with version #2 of the argument in this post, then the conversation returns to the issue of whether the potential better reliability of Ghost 2003 over Ghost 9.0/10.0 is in fact realized.  My suggestion is that no evidence exists that compels one to conclude that the potential is reality.  For example, "hot defragmentation" (i.e., defragmenting a Windows drive from within Windows) is potentially less reliable than doing so from DOS, but there is simply no evidence that such Windows tools as Diskeeper or Perfect Disk have reduced reliability over DOS counterparts.

As a consequence, I hold firm to the statement that Ghost 9.0/10.0 is no less reliable than Ghost 2003 – until such time as someone can document otherwise.

P.S.:  You are an excellent debating partner!   ;)

NightOwl, concerning your Reply #30 post, I agree that booting into a Recovery Environment for Ghost 9.0 is “inconvenient.”  The good news, however, is that this step ought to be a very rare event – necessary only when restoring the system drive.  Other than that one case, there is no need to invoke the Recovery Environment at all, and so the issue is minimal.

Multiple drives (“partitions”) can be restored in one step with Ghost 9.0 – see pages 76-77 in the User’s Guide.

With respect to Ghost 9.0 issues, I think on this forum we have seen them appear across the entire spectrum of the product including installation, image creation, and image restoration – similar to the experience with Ghost 2003.  I seriously doubt that Ghost 9.0 is completely “defect free,” but then again neither is Windows XP nor any other major DOS or Windows application with which I am familiar.  Ghost 2003, for example, has several “known problems” documented in the Symantec Knowledge Base.  The good news, however, is that Symantec releases new versions and updates to correct problems with Ghost 9.0/10.0, whereas such is no longer true for Ghost 2003, unfortunately.

Hello,

am I missing something ?

I have ghost 2003 and it works great.  So great I didn't even know there was a ghost 10 let alone Version 9.

My question is that I see no mention of ghosting remotely in ghost 10.  Can this be done ?

In 2003 I am able to add remote clients, take an image, and recover an image to 20 computers at the same time all at my desktop remotely.  Can this be done with these new "ghosts" ?

Elec_Tech, the answer to your question is "yes."  However, you will need the 'corporate' version of Ghost 10 which is called "LiveState Recovery."  See the Symantec website for additional information:
  http://sea.symantec.com/content/product.cfm?productid=32

Thanks Pleonasm,


I do have Corporate 2003 as I work for a University.

Confusing how the name changes.

Now the question is whish "live state recovery" do I need as there are about 8 of them.

Symantec says:

• "If you would like to place an order over the phone, or if you need presales support, please call 888-810-9896 and press option number 3."

I suspect that doing so would help to resolve which configurations of products are the best fit for your needs.

Please post a reply as your journey continues . . . .

"If you would like to place an order over the phone, or if you need presales support, please call 888-810-9896 and press option number 3."
I suspect that doing so would help to resolve which configurations of products are the best fit for your needs.
I'm a totally frustrated purchaser of Ghost 9. I've been wasting my time with Norton/Symantec support via chat, email, and phone, for over 2 weeks since I got the product and have been unable to make a successful backup (the dreaded invalid PQI file error). Their suggestions have been generally ridiculous for a program that is running under XP and using .NET. There is the implication that the product doesn't actually USE any of the capabilities that XP provides for managing files!! Maybe they just wanted to use .NET for the cool GUI?  

I finally decided to look into the recently released Ghost 10 to see if they might have addressed the issues I have been having.  So I called the number above and pressed option 3 to get some pre-sales support - except the phone menu says it is for "technical assistance with your installed product, virus removal, or assistance with your rebate"!!  after some effort I was told by somebody somewhere at Norton Support (800)745.6052 that the bad PQI file error is now gone in Ghost 10. Or at least that they have no reports of it with Ghost 10.

Yet.  

I am going to buy Ghost 10 and see what happens.

Dave Ascher

If Symantec has *fixed* the problem in Ghost 10.x, that suggests they figured out what the problem is (was?), so why can't they resolve the issue in Ghost 9.x with appropriate *Live Updates* or a FAQ Knowlege based solution?

Just seems strange....

Just purchased Norton Ghost 10

Two Issues

Activation does not work, keyboard beeps when I attempt to enter some of the letters in the activation code, can not enter them.   Length of provided activation code does not match activation box.

Recovery CD when booted results in BSOD.

Gone back to 9.0, it works and is stable.  

rickhd


Quote:

Activation does not work, keyboard beeps when I attempt to enter some of the letters in the activation code, can not enter them.   Length of provided activation code does not match activation box.

Yikes!


Quote:

Recovery CD when booted results in BSOD.

Ouch!

But Ghost 9.x works okay on the system!?  That's strange!

I have been using ghost 2003 for a while and I think it's great.  However, trying to backup over the network is a pain and almost impossible.  I can't get it to work.

I was thinking of going over to ver 9 or ver 10, but was wondering why do they include ver. 2003 in the box also.  Ghost 2003 makes image files as *.gho or  *.ghs and ghost 9 & 10 makes image files as *.v2i or *.s##.  2003 cannot read ver 9 & 10 files and vise versa.  So it seems to me that either you work with 2003 or 9 & 10, but not both.

Is there some sort of workaround that if you have 2003 images and want to upgrade to ver 9 or 10 to still be able to use your images?  I have a base image (*.gho) with the basic install plus a few essential apps, that if all else fails and I want a clean install I can go back to it.  If I move over to ver 9 or 10, my *.gho file will be useless or I would have to use two apps, 2003 for my older *.gho files and and ver 9 or 10 for moving forward with my new image files.

twodaend

Ghost 2003 is included with Ghost 9 and 10 because there are still a fair number of folks using pre-WinXP OS's (and WinNT versions), and Ghost 9 and above require WinXP or other WinNT versions to work.  The install program looks at the OS you are installing Ghost onto, if it's WinXP or other NT version, you get Ghost 9 or 10.  If it's WinME, 98, (95-?)--then you get Ghost 2003.

(Edit by NightOwl--most likely what I said above applies to Ghost 2003 or Ghost 9.x or 10.x if on Norton SystemWorks Premire--Ghost 9.x or 10.x stand-alone, I think, usually has two separate CD's--one is Ghost 2003, and the other is Ghost 9.x or 10.x as the case may be.)

The Ghost 9 and above comes with a *crippled* version of Ghost 8.x (the corporate cousin of Ghost 2003) on the Recovery Disk.  It will read *legacy* Ghost images such as from Ghost 2003 and restore them.  By *crippled*, I mean it will not allow you to create an image file--only do an integrity check and a restore.

Hey guys... complete newb here...

I'm a new owner of ATI 9.0, and it really sucks...

I've been waiting for Ghost 10 to come out, but I'm not sure that it's exactly what I want either.  After reading a few things on this forum and on the Rad-pages, I'm thinking that Ghost 2003 is what I need (but, since 2003 comes with 10, I might just get 10 anyway).

What I want:

(1)  Native DVD support (DL would be great) for system restore (C drive).  I want to image my "fresh" install of XP (with programs) onto a DVD and then boot & restore from it when I need to.

(2) Regular, (incremental) backups of data drive (RAID 10 array).  I'd like to image the entire drive and/or certain parts to local Firewire drive and to networked drives.  

(3)  Most important - Reliability.

It sounds simple, but I've been amazed at how difficult it is to find a program that will accomplish the above tasks.

So, should I get Ghost 10?  After the person who posted about their experiences with Ghost 10, I'm beginning to wonder.

Questions... Is Ghost 2003 a completely seperate CD, or "part" of Ghost 10?  can I just install Ghost 2003 if I buy Ghost 10? Is "authentication" required for Ghost 2003?   (CompUSA has rebates right now, so Ghost 10's price isn't that bad.)

Thanks a ton for the help... and thank you very much for the articles and this forum - it's a huge help.

Why do you say ATI sucks?

I like ATI but many people don't, particularly ver 9. Have a look at the ATI Forum.

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

ATI 9.0 is my first experience with True Image.  I'd heard great things about ATI 7 and 8.

So far... I'll create images, verify them with the software, and everything seems fine... When I try to restore from that image, the software says that the image is corrupted.  This happens every time... I've read every single thread in that forum and done everything that the Tech Support says to do... but, still - corrupted.

Apparently, the images are not corrupted, it's just a bug in the software - that is sitll not fixed.

I don't have the time to spend hours and hours (even days and days) trying to get a program to work as it should.

Furthermore, they advertise "DVD Support"... but, there isn't really DVD support - the Support says that it will be added later.

So, yeah, I'm very disappointed.

Belayman

1.  Rad built a system for friends and used Ghost 2003 with a dual layer DVD writer to create a Ghost image--apparently without problems.  But compatibility with newer optical drives is an issue being as Ghost 2003 is no longer supported with updates.

Rad usually uses Plextor optical drives--the more main-stream the drive maker, the better chance of compatibility.

2.  Ghost 2003 will not support *incremental* backups--or backing up only *certain parts* of a drive.  The smallest unit to back up is a partition.

3.  Very reliable--assuming all components are compatible.


Quote:

Questions... Is Ghost 2003 a completely seperate CD, or "part" of Ghost 10?  can I just install Ghost 2003 if I buy Ghost 10? Is "authentication" required for Ghost 2003?

Ghost stand-alone product--probably separate CD--it was that way with Ghost 9.x--but things *change*  ;) !

If a separate CD, you should be able to install just Ghost 2003.  If it's been integrated onto a single CD with Ghost 10, there may be some *trick* as to how to go about installing one or the other.  Should be *documentation* somewhere--but we're talking *Symantec Support* here  ;) !

No *authentication* is used with Ghost 2003.

Thanks for the reply NightOwl...

That's good about Plextor - I always use Plextor in my systems... to me, Plextor is King, and worth the slight increase in price.

Incremental images would be nice, but reliability is most important to me, so I'll give it a try.

I guess I'll head out today and get Ghost 10 - with the rebates (even though they take a few months to get back), Ghost 10 is not really that expensive right now... and I can afford it, even for just experimentation.

Thanks a bunch for the help... And again, I really appreciate this board, and all the Rad-Guides and such... they've been a huge help.

just purchased the download.

It's okay.. made for backups. No way of creating "bootable floppies" as I do not see under options the ghost boot disk wizard anywhere.

but they did include an .ISO file which i assume can be a bootable CD-R ?

going to try it tonight

Here's the info on Ghost 2003 supporting dual-layer DVDs:

http://radified.com/blog/archives/000185.html

I admit I was surprised, since dual-layer is (was) so new.

The retail boxed version of Ghost 10 does come with Ghost 2003 on a totally seperate CD... on its own CD.

I don't know if I'll have time to play with Ghost before next week though.    :(

For those who have just bought Ghost 10 and want to do their first backup, this is what I suggest.

Start Ghost 10
click Back Up Now
click Define New Backup
In the Easy Setup Window put a dot in Define a new custom backup. OK
click Next in the Define Backup Wizard
select the drive to backup. Next
put dot in Independent recovery point. Next
choose the location for the backup image. Next
Compression Standard (recommended). Tick verify. Untick Limit the number of ... Ignore Advanced if you don't need to split the image. Next
dot in Manually
tick Create Recovery point now
Finish
Performance slider to Fast


Now you can start learning to do Scheduled backups at your leisure.

Rickhd, I am clueless as to why you are unable to activate your copy of Ghost 10.0 and why booting from your Recovery CD results in the ‘blue-screen-of-death.’  Obviously, this is a problem unique to your PC and/or its configuration (otherwise, the reports of such difficulty with these elementary tasks would be posted widely).

May I ask:  from where did you purchase your copy of Ghost 10.0?  Counterfeit copies of Symantec software have been known to be circulating (http://www.symantec.com/press/2005/n050928.html), and if your copy is not legitimate, that might cause an activation problem.

Pleonasm wrote on Oct 13^th, 2005 at 6:57pm:

Rickhd, I am clueless as to why you are unable to activate your copy of Ghost 10.0 and why booting from your Recovery CD results in the ‘blue-screen-of-death.’  Obviously, this is a problem unique to your PC and/or its configuration (otherwise, the reports of such difficulty with these elementary tasks would be posted widely). May I ask:  from where did you purchase your copy of Ghost 10.0?  Counterfeit copies of Symantec software have been known to be circulating (http://www.symantec.com/press/2005/n050928.html), and if your copy is not legitimate, that might cause an activation problem.

I purchased and downloaded directly from Symantec.

The Keyboard issue is very strange I have never see anything like it before, may be a issue with the activation and my USB Keyboard.  When I go to enter some of the activation code it does not enter  I just get a beep.   I have to try a standard PS/2 Keyboard to see if that is the issue.  

As for the BSOD issue on the Recovery disk, I thought it may have been a bad burn.   Burned another disk and the same issue.  I think it said Machine Exception Error.  

Hi,

Does anyone know if the new version supports hardware Raid 1 for cloning??

Thanks

Ray

I am trying to setup ghost 10 to backup to a home network drive.  The drive is mapped, all sharing capabilities functioning....  Ghost 10 setup, however, wants "network credentials" to access this drive.  I do password protect my computers for each admin user but those "usernames and passwords" dont satisfy Ghost 10.  How do I bypass the programs need for "network credentials"?

Ray1979, I recommend that you start a new thread (“Ghost 10:  RAID”) on this forum about the supported RAID levels for Ghost 10.0, so that your question receives attention.

Have you contacted Symantec Live Technical Support (http://live-symantec.custhelp.com)?

For Ghost 9.0, the supported RAID levels are 0 and 5 (see Symantec Knowledge Base Document ID 2004024963607262).

Please post what you learn.

Jluv, you may wish to review the thread “Using Ghost 9 over a network” on this forum at http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1120798529;start=).  I recommend that you add your question to that thread, so that it receives attention from the forum community.

Please post what you discover.

Rrickhd, as a troubleshooting test, you may wish to try creating and booting with a BartPE CD (http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/).  If the BSOD problem persists, then the issue would appear to be unrelated to Ghost 10.0 per se (since both use the Windows Preinstallation Environment).

I also recommend that you start a new thread ("Ghost 10:  Boot CD") to ensure that your issue receives attention from the forum community.

Rrickhd, also see the thread “Ghost 10 Rescue Disc causes reboot” (http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1128254609;start=) on this forum.  Note that the problem was solved by changing BIOS settings.

Brief instructions on setting up a Scheduled backup.

Start Ghost 10
Click Back up Now
click Define New backup
Define Backup Wizard opens, Next
select the drive to backup, Next
choose Recovery point set (recommended), Next
Choose location and filename, Next
Choose desired compression, Tick Verify recovery point after creation, Choose your Limit..., ignore Advanced unless you want to split the image, Next
Dot in Scheduled, click Define Custom Schedule
Scheduling tab,Top part is for the days and the time that Incremental recovery points will be created
Untick "Create more than one recovery point per day" if you only need one , otherwise choose the number of incremental recovery points
Choose frequency of Base recovery points at the bottom, eg weekly, monthly, etc
Click "Event trigger" tab, Choose any of the four, OK, Next
Tick "Create recovery point now" if you want it done before the scheduled time, Finish
Performance slider to Fast if you desire

I have an image I made on Ghost 2003 with a password I no longer remember!  Can anybody help?

Post your question in a new thread of its own.

...And the first review of Ghost 10.0 has appeared:  see PC World's article "True Image 9 Edges Past Norton Ghost 10" at http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,123202,00.asp.

Pleo,

How do you find these comparisons so quickly?

We have had a few complaints about Ghost 10 here but there are pages of complaints about Acronis TI 9 on the TI forum. From a stability aspect it's the worst version Acronis has released. There is a software update every week or so which fixes some problems and introduces others. On the other hand, people without a problem generally don't write to the forums.

The TI forum reminds me of the Walt Disney lemming movie. But I'm assured lemmings don't jump off cliffs.

I haven't seen TI 9 in action but I liked previous versions.

Hey, Brian, I didn’t say that I agreed with the review – only documented its existence.  Although I have never personally used True Image 9, I am amazed by the breadth and depth of customer complaints about this application, as you note.

The PC Magazine review, in my opinion, is shallow in so far as it only demonstrates that that the two products differ in the set of features provided.  This will, of course, be an accurate assessment for the comparison of any two products in the same domain.  The more important questions – not addressed in the review – are about delivering reliability (backup/restore), achieving stability (operating consistency) and minimizing resource consumption (performance/speed).

I know you didn't agree with the review Pleo. And I'd agree that these superficial reviews don't mean much anyway.

Does anyone know if Ghost 10 supports Dual Layer DVD. Possibly with use of something called a UDF packet? A support person at Acronis said that True Image 9 supports Dual layer DVD, but it requires pre-formatting the DVD with the UDF packet. How does this work?

Fred892,

I can't find an answer about dual layer DVD support.

Acronis TI requires you to buy extra software to write images direct to CD/DVD. Ghost 9 and 10 contain Gear software which writes variable length UDF packets to CD/DVD. Discs don't have to be pre-formatted.

http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/powerquest.nsf/docid/2004030176699562

Fred892, see the thread "Norton Ghost 10.0 & Dual-layer DVD Support" on this forum at http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1128427251;start=4#4.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=104711

An amusing followup on the TI 9/Ghost 10 review. It seems the author didn't even use TI 9.

Good grief!  A review that compares True Image 9 with Ghost 10 by an author who has never used the former and yet expresses his preference for it!

Could it be that the quality of the review of a product in PC World is related to the number of advertising dollars spent by the software manufacturer in the magazine?

Brian wrote on Oct 12^th, 2005 at 11:35pm:

For those who have just bought Ghost 10 and want to do their first backup, this is what I suggest. Start Ghost 10 click Back Up Now click Define New Backup In the Easy Setup Window put a dot in Define a new custom backup. OK click Next in the Define Backup Wizard select the drive to backup. Next put dot in Independent recovery point. Next choose the location for the backup image. Next Compression Standard (recommended). Tick verify. Untick Limit the number of ... Ignore Advanced if you don't need to split the image. Next dot in Manually tick Create Recovery point now Finish Performance slider to Fast Now you can start learning to do Scheduled backups at your leisure.

Brian.......
You are a real gem for this info. I had spent about 6-7 hours trying to find out the error codes I was getting and then I happened on this web site and bingo your suggestion worked perfect. Backed up everything(not getting into image or clone or that stuff) in 3hours 15min to DVD-RW.  Don't have an external hard drive yet but was reading another post and I am going to get an enclosure and stick one of my spare drives into it if that is all it takes.

Thanks and my wife thanks you many times over.
harold

Harold V Cole,

I'm pleased that it helped. I have a few more mini guides.


Quote:

SCHEDULE RECOVERY POINTS Start Ghost 10 Click Back up Now click Define New backup Define Backup Wizard opens, Next In the Easy Setup put a dot in Define a new custom backup, OK Define Backup Wizard opens, Next select the drive to backup, Next choose Recovery point set (recommended), Next Choose location and filename, Next Choose desired compression, Tick Verify recovery point after creation, Choose your Limit...(I leave unticked), ignore Advanced unless you want to split the image, Next Dot in Scheduled, click Define Custom Schedule Scheduling tab,Top part is for the days and the time that recovery points (Base and Incremental) will be created. I tick all days. Untick "Create more than one recovery point per day" if you only need one , otherwise choose the number of incremental recovery points Choose frequency of Base recovery points at the bottom, eg weekly, monthly, etc    I choose weekly Click "Event trigger" tab, Choose any of the four or leave unticked, (I leave unticked) OK, Next Tick "Create recovery point now" if you want it done before the scheduled time, Finish

Quote:

MANUAL RECOVERY POINTS Start Ghost 10 Click Back up Now click Define New backup Define Backup Wizard opens, Next In the Easy Setup put a dot in Define a new custom backup, OK Define Backup Wizard opens, Next select the drive to backup, Next choose Recovery point set (recommended), Next Choose location and filename, Next Choose desired compression, Tick Verify recovery point after creation, Untick Limit the number..., ignore Advanced unless you want to split the image, Next Dot in Manually (no schedule), Next Tick in Create recovery point now, Finish Later, start Ghost 10, click Back Up Now, then click the Back Up Now button at the bottom of the window and it should start an incremental point.

Don't know if this is the  right place to ask for help, but Im having a nightmare trying to get multicasting working with the Allied Telesyn 2701fx fibre NIC - managing clients from the Ghost console.
Tried the generic packet driver, as well as the ones from AT, and nothing seems to work.
Any help is greatly appreciated, been searching the web for a couple of days now and turned up nothing :-[

jimmyeao

This appears to be a question regarding the Corporate Ghost product--? Ghost 8.xx?

You would probably be better off starting a new thread specific to your problem so folks see it--this thread is regarding the *retail* Ghost 10 product for the masses, and will have little notice by folks using Ghost that manages *clients from the Ghost console*.

If it is Ghost 8.xx that you are using, the tread topic might be:

*Help--Allied Telesyn 2701fx fibre NIC driver for multicasting with Ghost 8 console*

But, there are not a lot of *Corporate* users with networking experience that frequent here--so may not get a lot of hits--but worth a try!

Well after reading alot of the posts on this forums I come to the conclusion that Ghost 2003 is the software I will continue to use. I need a piece of software this is reliable and stable for both backing up and  restoring my backups with less hassle. I have been using ghost way before Symantec got their grubby little fingers in it and bought the program from a company called "Basic Reaseach" a Finland software company. I have used Ghost 9.0 and 10.0 and IMHO Ghost 2003 is more reliable and stable and hassle free then the newer versions.

So you may disagree with me ... thats kool all I know is what works for me. If it aint broke..... dont fix it.

The real question is what is reliable for you? If you think having a GUI type Ghost program than use it. If you feel that a DOS version of Ghost is more reliable then use it.

So this debate will continue but again IMHO use the DOS version is the way to go.

Good Luck in your debate hehehehehe..... you will need it lol