Radified Community Forums
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
Rad Community Technical Discussion Boards (Computer Hardware + PC Software) >> Norton Ghost 2003,  Ghost v8.x + Ghost Solution Suite (GSS) Discussion Board >> Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1126044747

Message started by Pleonasm on Sep 6th, 2005 at 7:12pm

Title: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Pleonasm on Sep 6th, 2005 at 7:12pm
I am writing (at the invitation of Rad) to summarize an alternative point of view to those who claim that Ghost 9.0 contains “hidden risks” and is “less reliable” than Ghost 2003.  Below is an examination of each of a dozen points often cited in support of that argument, provided in order to assist a thoughtful reader with the task of impartially discerning the reality of the situation.

Point #1:  Installation


It has been correctly noted that unlike Ghost 2003 – which can be run directly from DOS – a user has to install Ghost 9.0 to use the program.  The requirement to install an application is common to almost all Windows applications, and is not perceived to be a disadvantage for those other applications.  Therefore, if installation is a disadvantage of Ghost 9.0, then Ghost 9.0 is certainly not alone in this regard.

Point #2:  Product Activation


It has been rightly said, “unlike Ghost 2003, Ghost 9 requires product activation.”  Activation is a trivial one-time step that occurs during the initial installation of the application, designed to protect the intellectual property rights of Symantec.  For a user who owns a legitimate product license, it is a non-issue.  For someone seeking to illegitimately use an image backup product, then certainly Ghost 2003 - a DOS-based solution that does not require activation - is preferable.  Otherwise, there is no reason to be concerned about the activation process of Ghost 9.0.

Point #3:  Hot Imaging


“Hot imaging” is a term used to describe the fact that Ghost 9.0 creates a backup image of an operating system drive/partition while the operating system is running.  A brief description of how this occurs is provided in the Symantec Knowledge Base document “How Virtual Volume Imaging (V2i) handles user changes during the backup process.”  It is more difficult to conceptualize than a DOS-based imaging process, no doubt; but it does not therefore logically follow that the process is less reliable than the DOS-based approach of Ghost 2003.

If using Ghost 9.0 were truly analogous to “taking a snapshot at a rock concert” (i.e., an ‘image’ of a ‘moving target’), then the inherent ‘lack of clarity’ (i.e., unreliability) would result in customer dissatisfaction that would in turn cause the marketplace demise of the product itself – for, obviously, corporations and individuals would not continue to purchase a product that performed even marginally less reliable than another, given the critical nature of image backup.  Clearly, the marketplace response has been quite the contrary, suggesting that the ‘photographic analogy’ used by Ghost 2003 advocates is without merit.

Point #4:  Corporate Imaging Solutions


“Symantec did not convert their Corporate version of Ghost to the Windows-based application” is an argument used by Ghost 2003 supporters to suggest that corporations prefer Ghost 2003 (and “so should you,” by inference).   The problem with the argument is that it is factually incorrect.  The corporate version of Ghost 9.0 is known as the LiveState Recovery suite of applications – used for the backup and recovery of a company's critical servers and their PCs.  LiveState Recovery is actively promoted and sold by Symantec.  Most importantly, if you go to the Symantec website, you'll see that Symantec doesn't even list the corporate version of Ghost 2003 any longer as an option within its solution set for "Backup and Disaster Recovery.”  If the choice of corporations is an indication of what a home user should employ for image backup, then the recommendation is to use Ghost 9.0.

Point #5:  Image Creation versus Restoration Environment


Ghost 9.0 has been criticized because the image creation environment (Windows XP) is different from the Recovery Environment (Windows PE) when restoring a system drive/partition (but not when restoring a non-system drive/partition).  The argument is the reliability of Ghost 9.0 is (somehow) compromised as a result.  Since Windows is being used in both cases, the validity of the argument is suspect.  Additionally, a single environment – namely, Bart's Preinstalled Environment (BartPE) - may be optionally used to both create and restore Ghost 9.0 images, if the user is concerned.

Point #6:  Updates


Ghost 9.0 has been criticized because the Norton Ghost CD/Symantec Recovery Disk CD – unlike the application itself – is not updated through the Symantec LiveUpdate facility.  There is no technical reason why Symantec could not disseminate a new version of the CD, in the event that a problem was discovered; however, to-date, this has not proven to be necessary.  In contrast, the user should understand that Symantec hasn’t updated Ghost 2003 since 2002 (when version 2003 was released) and one Ghost 2003 expert on this forum used the adjective “dead” in describing updates for Ghost 2003.  The Ghost 9.0 application, however, has been updated through LiveUpdate in 2005.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Rad on Sep 6th, 2005 at 7:16pm
Very nice. Very professional. Clean. Readable. I will edit the guide to direct readers to your comments in defense of v9.

Thx for contributing. I would make you a dang moderator if you had a real user name.  :)

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Pleonasm on Sep 6th, 2005 at 7:22pm
Point #7:  Microsoft .NET Framework


It has been noted that Ghost 9.0 "requires you to install Microsoft's .NET bloatware.”  Far from being a disadvantage, conforming to the Microsoft .NET standard positions the product well for further enhancement, interoperability, and compatibility with future advancement in PC technology.  Consider, for example, that .NET is the underlying component of the Service Oriented Architecture (known as Indigo) of Microsoft’s next generation operating system, Windows Vista.  Additionally, other than occupying a small amount of disk space, the .NET framework presents no disadvantage to the user.

Point #8:  Acronis True Image


It has been argued that since the Acronis True Image backup product is known to have serious problems, and since it uses “hot imaging” like Ghost 9.0, then Ghost 9.0 is therefore likely to also suffer from the same problems observed with True Image.  This argument is interesting, but clearly flawed.  Acronis True Image and Symantec Norton Ghost 9.0 are two distinct products, authored independently by two separate and unaffiliated companies.  Because the former has problems simply has no relevance to the reliability of the latter.  It would be like saying that since Intuit’s Quicken has ‘problem X,’ then Microsoft’s Money product will also exhibit ‘problem X’ because both are superficially similar in that they are personal financial management tools.

Point #9:  Symantec User Forums


It has been stated that “it doesn’t surprise me Symantec shut down their forums prior to releasing Ghost 9,” suggesting that this action is somehow intended to conceal problems with Ghost 9.0 from the public.  The fact is that Symantec (disappointingly) discontinued all user forums for all retail products at the same time, and therefore their decision to do so cannot be legitimately interpreted to constitute a “Ghost 9.0 cover-up.”  There are several public forums for Symantec products in existence today, and there is no Ghost 9.0 “conspiracy” underway to hide knowledge about the performance of the product.  Suggesting otherwise is foolhardy.

Point #10:  Features


Ghost 9.0 has been criticized for lacking some features present in Ghost 2003.  The counter-argument is that the later also lacks features not present in the former, most importantly the ability to conduct incremental image backup and to schedule image backup to run automatically at a user specified time.  These are extremely beneficial features for many users, to say nothing of avoiding the inconvenience of booting to DOS in order to manually run Ghost 2003.

Point #11:  Troubleshooting


“It is more difficult to troubleshoot problems with Ghost 9.0 because imaging from Windows involves so many more variables” – so say Ghost 2003 advocates.  No doubt, Windows is more complex than DOS.  But correspondingly, it can be said, “It is more difficult to troubleshoot problems with Ghost 2003 because Ghost 2003 involves so many more variables.”  How many more?  Consider that there are 135 individual command-line switches for Ghost 2003.  The reader may also be interested in knowing that the Symantec Knowledge Base contains 413 support articles for Ghost 2003 – but only 90 for Ghost 9.0 – suggesting that Ghost 2003 is 460% more problematical to troubleshoot than Ghost 9.0.

Additionally, here is a fun experiment to try.  Go to Google and search within “Groups” for (A) “Ghost 9.0” and (B) “Ghost 2003.”  This inquiry searches a broad range of user forums and communities representing, by and large, user initiated questions & answers.  Want to guess how many ‘questions’ you’ll uncover for Ghost 9.0?  The answer is 2,830.  Now, how about Ghost 2003?  Would you believe that the answer is 18,500 – a 654% increase?  Can one honestly argue that Ghost 2003 is easier to troubleshoot?

Point #12:  Voice of the Experts


The RADIFIED Guide to Norton Ghost quotes three experts offering their opinion that Ghost 2003 is a more reliable product than Ghost 9.0.  Those users of Ghost 2003 have indeed experienced reliability with the product – but they appear not to have even tested Ghost 9.0, and so their comparative comments are suspect.  More importantly, from their experience with Ghost 2003, it does not logically follow that their success would have been any less outstanding if Ghost 9.0 had been used instead.

The most significant point is that their voice is clearly in the minority.  Simply stated, IT professionals prefer Ghost 9.0.  The evidence is a January, 2005 poll published in Redmond Magazine that voted Ghost 9.0 “the Best of the Best” - "a landslide victory," according to the magazine editors - and "the largest percentage of votes of any product in any category.”  Additionally, PC Magazine has selected Ghost 9.0 as it’s “Editor’s Choice” for image backup (August, 2005).

* * * * * * * * * *


In summary, it is worthwhile to note that not all image backup products – whether Ghost 2003 or Ghost 9.0 – work in all PC configurations.  Therefore, the user has a responsibility to assess and to ensure a proper ‘fit’ between the application and the system environment in which it is being used.  Ghost 2003 is reliable.  Ghost 9.0 is no less reliable.

I look forward to reading the commentary that will follow by other members of this forum.  As you post your own observations and perspectives, please:
  • Explicitly refer to one of the above points by number, so that the dialog can be easily tracked by all readers.

  • If your point is not included within the preceding list, then please create and label a new point and assign it the next sequential integer designation so that others can refer to with equal ease.

In conclusion, Ghost 2003 is a tool with a long and a proud history that has served many faithfully over the years.  It is, however, well on its way toward fading into the shadows.  Ghost 2003 is not the “ghost of Christmas present” or the “ghost of Christmas future”, to borrow the imagery of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol; but is the “ghost of Christmas past.”

Peace to all who post,
Pleonasm

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Brian on Sep 6th, 2005 at 9:12pm
Pleonasm, very eloquent. As expected.

Re Point # 12, Redmond magazine:

I found this http://www.acronis.com/enterprise/pr/2005/pr02-01.html

It claims: Readers of Redmond magazine named Acronis True Image preferred product for "Drive Imaging", according to results published in the January 2005 "Best of the Best" issue.

Hang on, isn't that what you said about Ghost 9. So I looked further and found
http://download.101com.com/redmond/pdf/0501red_best.pdf

On page 3 Acronis TI gets 6.9% of the vote, so in Acronis' eyes that makes it "preferred product". Not THE "preferred product" however. The latter title would go to Symantec Ghost with 59.4% of the vote. I looked hard but couldn't find the numeral 9. As much as we both would have liked.

I've written to the Acronis group about 6.9% of the vote meaning "preferred product".

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by NightOwl on Sep 7th, 2005 at 1:16am
Pleonasm

Well said.... !

Minor clarification:  Point #6:  Updates


Quote:
the user should understand that Symantec hasn’t updated Ghost 2003 since 2002 (when version 2003 was released)


My final Live Update for Ghost 2003 has the following  version information:

Norton Ghost 2003 (build=793, cdrlib=3.1.25)

The file date is 12/24/2003, and the *readme.txt* associated with that final Live Update has a date of 01/07/2004, which says it's *Update 3*--so the *2002* date is the *release* date of the initial Ghost 2003, but not when it was last updated!

General comment:

Ghost 9.x vs Ghost 2003--apples and oranges--each has its pluses and minuses--each has its special features or lack thereof.  You can do certain things with one, and definitely not with the other.

*Hot-imaging* has a bad reputation for many going back to Win 3.1!  I've been burned several times along the way!!  Certainly, Ghost 9.x appears to have resolved most (if not all?) of the reliability issues.

I suspect most Ghost 9.x problems stem from flaky, unstable Windows systems--if Windows is unreliable, then one can only expect Ghost 9.x to be equally affected.

Ghost 2003 does not solve that problem either!  You may be able to successfully use DOS to create an image of that flaky, unstable Windows system--but, what do you gain by restoring that flaky, unstable image of Windows?!

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Christer on Sep 7th, 2005 at 5:17am
I will follow this topic with great interest! I have come across a webpage which have a lot of opinions on Ghost 9 from different users. I haven't read it all but I will. Have a look at What other people say about Norton Ghost 9.0 - Disk Imaging Solution

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Christer on Sep 7th, 2005 at 7:41am
From point #11:  Troubleshooting


Quote:
The reader may also be interested in knowing that the Symantec Knowledge Base contains 413 support articles for Ghost 2003 – but only 90 for Ghost 9.0 – suggesting that Ghost 2003 is 460% more problematical to troubleshoot than Ghost 9.0.

Want to guess how many ‘questions’ you’ll uncover for Ghost 9.0?  The answer is 2,830.  Now, how about Ghost 2003?  Would you believe that the answer is 18,500 – a 654% increase?

Can one honestly argue that Ghost 2003 is easier to troubleshoot?

Ghost 9 was released in September 2004, a life span of one year. Ghost 2003 was released in August 2002 a life span of three years. I don't know when the first consumer version of Ghost "classic" was released but never mind, one can not take those figures and claim that they represent a "trouble shooting rating". The time factor, the number of actual/potential users and a miscellany of other factors have to be considered.

Over at the Windows BBS, someone actually claimed that Windows ME was less troublesome than Windows 98, based on the fact that the number of topics on the respective operating system were approximately 1:5 ...... ;) ...... and we all know that's far from the truth.

There are three kinds of lies: a white lie, a normal lie and statistics!

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Pleonasm on Sep 7th, 2005 at 5:04pm
A key benefit of this forum is the ability to gather and share the perspectives of many, and already this thread has made a good start.

To summarize the feedback provided to-date:

Point #6:  Updates
The most recent update for Ghost 2003 was issued in January, 2004 - not 2002 as originally stated.  (Kudos to NightOwl!)

Point #11:  Troubleshooting
The results quoted for the Google search of “Ghost 2003” versus “Ghost 9.0” should be time-adjusted for the duration that each application (3 years versus 1) has been in existence, to be fair.  (Ideally, one would adjust by the number of users, but that quantity is unknown.)  Thus, the 654% statistic should more appropriately read 218%.  (Kudos to Christer!)

Point #12:  Voice of the Experts
The reference to the Redmond Magazine article needs to be deleted, since the quoted survey fails to distinguish between Ghost 2003 and Ghost 9.0, and therefore the observed findings are ambiguous.  (Kudos to Brian!)

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Rad on Sep 8th, 2005 at 5:21pm
I apologize for the delay. Today I included a link to this thread near the bottom of the page where I discuss my views on Ghost 9:

http://ghost.radified.com/norton_ghost_90.htm

I also updated the PDFs.

It might take a while, but it seems like the threads I mention in the guide receive lots of page-views.

So, I want to thank Mr. Pleo for his input. He makes valid points. It's always good to hear both side sides of an argument. That will help users make better-informed decisions.

Again, I think it doesn't matter so much *which* imaging prgm people use, but rather they use *some* imaging prgm.

Check my wording and see if there's anything I should modify. I want to be fair to those who use & recommend Ghost 9, especially since I've never used it myself.

Rad

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Peter2150 on Sep 8th, 2005 at 11:46pm
While I can't necessarily comment on the pure technicality of reliability, I can comment on one perception of reliablility, and that is the area of getting help.   When I decided to buy Ghost 2003 it in part was based on the fact I found this forum, and knew I could get help.  My prior experiences with Symantec told me I'd get no help there.  So if I was asked which version someone should rely on I'd say 2003 as there is a large pool of experts here.   Eventually 9.0 will have that same advantage, hopefully.  I would tell someone that they can't rely on Symantec, at least based on my experience.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Christer on Sep 10th, 2005 at 4:41pm
The subject of this topic is "reliability" but this is more "functionality". Anyway, a quote from another topic:


Quote:
Brian,
I have just completed "maintenance" on the computer in our flying club. I brought it to my home to change the harddisk. It runs 24/7 and the harddisk powers down after 3 hours inactivity. Occasionally, it has not responded to activity (mouse, keyboard), neither has it booted after resetting the computer. When this has happened, it has always booted from the Ghost Boot Disks. A few hours of "cooling down" has brought the harddisk back to life. My conclusion was "harddisk going sout" and I did a Disk to Disk, transferring the system to another "second hand" harddisk.

The "old" HDD is 20 GB - 3 partitions - approximately 10 GB used. The "new" HDD is 40 GB - partitions proportionally resized by Ghost.

The operation took ~30 minutes, timed from fetching screwdriver to putting same back in the drawer with the computer up and running on the "new" harddisk.

Anyone who has done a comparable deed with Ghost 9.0? How long did it take?

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Brian on Sep 10th, 2005 at 6:04pm
Christer, you are faster. I had to replace both HD's earlier this year due to SMART alerts but the HD's were still operational. I timed the first HD changeover at 45 minutes. Apart from the screwdriver tasks I used PM to created 4 partitions, booted to the Ghost 9 RE and restored 3 images from the second HD. The final partition was restored later from Windows.

Restoring images with Ghost 9 (total time) is probably a little longer than Ghost 2003 due to the few minutes it takes to boot into the Ghost 9 RE.

My flying club days are over I'm afraid. After 20 years, the love affair with flying has ended. I only bother to look at military jets flying over my house now. Strange how our interests change.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Christer on Sep 10th, 2005 at 6:56pm
In my case, the target HDD is a disused IBM 60GXP which had been cleansed using delpart. I only plugged it in (no partitions, only unallocated space) as secondary master and let Ghost loose. I almost anticipate having to do it again soon, after the final demise of the "deathstar". This is a trial to find out if it really is the HDD that is the cause of the problem. If it is, I will buy a new HDD ...... :o ...... when it becomes necessary. I will keep the old Quantum Fireball in a drawer, enabling me to repeat the task.

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Christer on Sep 10th, 2005 at 7:06pm
Oh, I forgot ...... ::) ...... military jets are overpriced fuel-to-noise converters. Soaring in gliders is recreation, competition with either the nature or co-competitors and a neccessity of life ...... :-X ...... well, for me at least.

I've "always" wanted to go to Australia in the winter (summer down under) and experience the best soaring conditions on this globe. I wonder if I ever will ...... :'( ...... ?

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Brian on Sep 10th, 2005 at 11:40pm
Waikerie is waiting for you Christer. Or soaring the Morning Glory in the Gulf of Carpentaria. You will have a great time. Do it.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Dental_Dude on Sep 11th, 2005 at 7:50pm
Hello,

I've used Ghost 9.0 for about a month now. Everything was fine until today. I cloned the HDD from my laptop to a new HDD. Everything seemed fine; however when I installed the new HDD, the Windows screen would freeze on the blue welcome screen.  I've tried several times, but same thing.  Any suggestions?  

Checking the files in explorer indicates everthing transfered.

KF


Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Brian on Sep 11th, 2005 at 7:56pm
Hi Dental_Dude,

Did you do it this way?

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1117581957;start=

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Pleonasm on Sep 21st, 2005 at 1:47pm
Point #13:  It Is Necessarily So

The “It Is Necessarily So” argument is closely related to the “Hot Imaging” topic (Point #3), but I am separating it for ease of discussion.   The gist of the current argument is as follows:
  • If “…every additional process you have running concurrently while a backup 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 necessarily more reliable than Windows-based Ghost 9.0/10.0”.

The difficulty with this argument is the huge logical jump from “potential point of conflict” to “necessarily more reliable.”  While the first two bullet points are sound, the conclusion does not follow the premise.  Consider that 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 (based upon a comparison of Ghost 2003 and Ghost 9.0/10.0), then the merit of the argument is weakened.

The argument should state:
  • If “…every additional process you have running concurrently while a backup 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”.

Thus, the discussion returns to the issue of whether the potential better reliability of Ghost 2003 over Ghost 9.0/10.0 is in fact realized.  There is, however, no evidence 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.

The interested reader will find the full discussion of this argument in the thread “Symantec Norton Ghost 10” at http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1124127608;start=0.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Franks on Oct 13th, 2005 at 10:21pm
Guys - thank you for providing such thorough and professionally presented information, I am so happy to have found such a good resource for imaging issues. I love that this site does not attract the kind of ill-informed numptys that stop me from getting to page 2 in a forum. I guess that when opinions are backed up with actual knowledge and experience, it confuses people who are not actually looking for resources and solution-oriented discussion. Great work and thanks again. I've picked up more off this site and a special thanks to NightOwl for the bootable cd/dvd pages - the best I could find on the net! I am using bits and bobs in our corporate desktop solution now as redundancy from our standard ghost methodology.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Rad on Oct 15th, 2005 at 1:47pm
Well there's a gracious compliment. Thanks for the kind words.

Title: Hot Imaging vs Windows Imaging
Post by Michel_Merlin on Nov 17th, 2005 at 12:09pm
I am new to radified (that I just discovered today) and never used Ghost myself (someone else made the images for me). But I have been a DI (PowerQuest Drive Image) user - even if occasionally and in the early versions (DI2 and DI4).

I remember of DI as a reliable and serious product - I had chosen it over Norton mainly for this reason. It did all the imaging under DOS, which kept the reliability of still imaging (in DOS) while adding the comfort and efficiency of interactive planning (in Windows) since all the process was progressively (version after version) automated like this (in PowerQuest Partition Magic first, then in DI):
  • Under Windows, DI (or PM) lets you virtually make all changes you want to the HD (partitionning or imaging), interactively, immediately and graphically pre-showing you all the (future) consequences;
  • DI (or PM) closes Windows;
  • Under DOS, DI (or PM) executes the changes;
  • DI (or PM) restarts Windows.
Then, after stage #1 (designing the changes), you can leave your PC; when you come back, it is running Windows, after all your changes have been applied unattended.

Then, until DI6, PowerQuest didn't AFAIK any really "Hot" Imaging, the imaging was designed in Windows, but remained executed in DOS.

Apparently (see PC WORLD Drive Image Does Windows, Sep 2003) PowerQuest in DI7 introduced true Hot Imaging, IMO against their own faith and only because feeling hard-stressed by competition (mainly from Acronis).

The bad reputation DI7 now has, results IMO from several factors, in which real quality issues may be minor:
  • Since out of business, PowerQuest no longer promotes or markets its reputation; this is a major reason IMO;
  • Since PQ didn't really believe Hot Imaging was a safe solution, while building the product they didn't put all the faith and hard drive such a task needs;
  • The new owner is interested in leveraging its own reputation and its own product name's one, hence in lowering the one of the product name they are terminating (after buying it, possibly in such purpose)
So a big question (important for the ones who, as me, haven't used Ghost 9 themselves), so far apparently little reported here, is IMO: Is Ghost 9 doing really Hot Imaging (i.e. real time immediate execution of all changes), or Interactively Designed Still Imaging (i.e. changes defined in Windows, then executed in DOS)?

Personnally I still think that the best solution for Imaging is the one PQ had progressively improved with DI until DI6, i.e. Still Imaging executed in DOS after being first interactively designed in Windows. As Rad nicely puts it (Norton Ghost v9.0 & Hot Imaging, middle of page):

« DOS is our tripod to keep Windows stationary so we can take a sharp picture of our sexy operating system with our Ghost camera. »

Paris, Thu 17 Nov 2005  17:09:20 +0100, edited 17:24:40

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Rad on Nov 17th, 2005 at 1:21pm
Nice post. Love the links. Nothing like taking advantage of hypertext.

With regards tp PM, I think you will find that, the more operations you queue up in Windows, the greater your chance of experiencing a quirky problem in DOS. Which is why I always recommend folks take baby-steps and perform one operation at a time .. reboot, and do the next.

Yeah, I fancied my tripod analogy rather clever.   8)

Is Ghost 9/10 relaible? That's the $64K question.

Seems Ghost 9/10 is all about user-friendliness. There's a big market out there consisting of folks who would love the back-up relaibility of an imaging program, but who do not have or care to acquire the knowledge necessary to work thru the (unfriendly) DOS interface. Can't really blame the manufacturers.

I am thinking of playing wit Ghost 10, just to acquaint myself with it. But I will still maintain a complement of back-up images with Ghost 2003.

PARIS? Was your car burned? What the heck is the problem there? Saw it on TV.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Michel_Merlin on Nov 17th, 2005 at 2:38pm

Rad wrote on Nov 17th, 2005 at 1:21pm:
With regards tp PM, I think you will find that, the more operations you queue up in Windows, the greater your chance of experiencing a quirky problem in DOS.
I used PM3, 5 and 6. This program continually improved, from insufficient and buggy (PM3.0.0) to fixed (PM3.0.5 IIRC, PM5) to quite satisfying (PM6.0).

In PM6.0 (that I still use) I can schedule ~10 operations, that later get executed in DOS, without any problem. I am careful however while in the Windows preparation, to schedule operations only in the logical order and without corrections; if I make a mistake (for instance correcting a resizing), I exit PM, discarding the changes, and redo from scratch.


Rad wrote on Nov 17th, 2005 at 1:21pm:
I am thinking of playing wit Ghost 10, just to acquaint myself with it. But I will still maintain a complement of back-up images with Ghost 2003.
I too would like to use Ghost 2003, e.g. to change the HD on my Laptop. I don't trust Ghost 9 or 10, I think they lost DI7 qualities (DI7's only flaw AFAIK was when dealing with optical medias; as long as you saved to/restored from HDs, it got no complaints.)


Rad wrote on Nov 17th, 2005 at 1:21pm:
PARIS? Was your car burned? What the heck is the problem there? Saw it on TV.
Paris area is 11M inhabitants, thus ~5M cars. There were 10,000 burned - i.e. 0.2%, so I saw none - excepted on TV. The ones who burn, of course they have cars; but personally I have no more: they did everything to make impossible to people like me to use or even to own a car, and now at 65, since spring 2004 and after fiercely resisting, I can only go by bicycle, train and bus - that are exhaustingly slow and unreliable. This is a political problem and it's hard (and may be dangersous) to speak more of it.

Paris, Thu 17 Nov 2005  19:38:40 +0100

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Rad on Nov 17th, 2005 at 2:48pm
Nice to hear from someone who actually lives there. Friends have told me I would like Europe, as they claim I am "European" .. whatever that means .. tho sadly, I have never been.

Your statement: "This is a political problem and it's hard (and may be dangersous) to speak more of it" made my head spin, as I understand the implications. Thanks for sharing.

I try to simply life when- and wherever possible. I have always admired Gandhi, who, at the time of his death, possessed little more than a robe, sandals, bowl, book, and a pair of glasses.

Not easy to simply, especially in our pro-consumer world, where everywhere you go, the marketers tell us we're nothing without their products.

So I am a little jealous of your no-car lifestyle.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by El_Pescador on Nov 17th, 2005 at 6:35pm

Rad wrote on Nov 17th, 2005 at 2:48pm:
"... I try to simply life when- and wherever possible.  I have always admired Gandhi, who, at the time of his death, possessed little more than a robe, sandals, bowl, book, and a pair of glasses..."

Such an ascetic lifestyle is quite commendable when your goal is to voluntarily practice strict self-denial as a measure of personal - and especially spiritual - discipline.  However, doing so involuntarily in a post-Katrina environment is a total bummer ::)

EP :'(

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Pleonasm on Nov 18th, 2005 at 2:02pm
“Is Ghost 9/10 reliable? That's the $64K question.”  Actually, to be precise, the $64,000 question is “Is Ghost 9/10 any less reliable than Ghost 2003?”

No major application is 100.00% reliable (given the huge number of variations in PC hardware and configuration options), to be sure.  However, no one on this forum, from my humble perspective, has provided any empirical evidence or logical rationale that Ghost 9/10 is (or should be) less reliable than Ghost 2003.  The arguments that have been advanced in this regard are clearly documented in this thread, together with corresponding counter-points.

I encourage Michel_Merlin (and all other readers of this post) to specifically reference one of the thirteen points in this thread and support or refute that argument.  Unsubstantiated comments like “PQ didn't really believe Hot Imaging was a safe solution” add no value to this dialog.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Kool on Nov 21st, 2005 at 4:28pm
Hi y'all!

Good thread.

Bought (after a long trial of an unofficial copy of Ghost 2003) Ghost V9 and use Ghost 2003. From floppy. No installation.

So you might think I'm going to stick with the version I know works.

OK you're right I will, but in the interest of keeping an open mind I offer the following for comment.

Pleonasm, you have placed your arguments for all to see, very clearly and concisely. I do not wish to take arms against you, in fact the opposite. But it will appear that I oppose you. But I do not, OK so that's the jest at your name, mines rubbish!

The only point I can take issue with is Point 11. Stats? If I am to take this seriously then lets compare like with like. What is the point in percentages with no comparison in number of end users of each product? If Ghost 2003 has many times the number of users compared to V9 / V10 then of course, more people will have Ghost 2003 queries, and because, like I used to use a "trial" copy, perhaps there are more users than copies sold! I did a Google Group Search, as suggested, for Ghost 9.0 and got 24,600 results, for Ghost 2003 it was 202,000. Ummm... perhaps Pleonasm has a point? Can there really be 8.2113821138211382113821138211382x the number of Ghost 2003 users? Hey, it's a Windows calculator thing! The point is moot, lets move on.

What does Symantec do? They SELL things.

That being the case they, like all companies, will want to increase sales.

Amongst marketing "hype-words" one of the most powerful is, "NEW".

So a new version will generate new sales and upgrades. If you already have a perfectly good product that does what it says on the tin (taken from a UK advert, no apologies), why would anyone want to purchase a new product?

It absolutely has to have a USP, a Unique Selling Point.

Thus, we have Ghost V9/V10 "Hot Imaging", and  consequential ease of use.

What, as Ghost consumers, do we need? (not want, I'll come to that!).

We need to be able to RESCUE, reliably, ourselves from broken Windows.

Will Ghost 2003 do this? Yes.

Will Ghost V9/V10 do this? I suspect the answer is "Yes". Would I be willing to RELY upon this? Right now, NO. Suspicion is no reason to convict, or in this case, use.

I need proof. There's only me that can provide that proof for myself. Just like there's only you that can provide the proof for yourself. It's a bit like "do we live after death", there no substite for direct experience! Don't come and see me with a gun, I'm willing to wait for my 3 score and 10!

I might be persuaded to install V9 and run a live comparison, keeping both 2003 & V9 images, that way I'm covered. It'll be a good test to see if SATA disks can be imaged more easily than in Ghost 2003, my machine has an internal SATA disk and needs one of the 135 switches (-NOIDE) to persuade Ghost 2003 to work!

What, as Ghost consumers, do we want?

A simple, reliable and easy to use way to RESCUE ourselves from broken Windows. If Ghost V9/V10 encourages more people to protect themselves, then that's great. Will V9 / V10 be able to RESCUE them from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? I hope so.

What should we use? ANYTHING that actually WORKS, that we feel confortable using. It doesn't matter how good, or poor a product is, people still use feelings!

If V9 / V10 are stable, in use in many corporate and home environments, used regularly and reliably to restore from, and have as low a failure rate as Ghost 2003, then lets applaud Symantec for good products, and ourselves for using them.

And, finally, my thanks to Pleonasm for placing some considered facts in front of us, perhaps we can take heart that we 2003ers, in all probability, have somewhere to go when we need to upgrade!  :)

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Pleonasm on Nov 21st, 2005 at 6:37pm
Kool, your comments about “Point 11” are well-taken, but these were already recognized in this thread at Reply #7.  Nonetheless, the ratio of 24,600 to 202,000 still suggests (but does not prove) that Ghost 9/10 may be less troublesome than Ghost 2003, as judged by the number of ‘questions’ arising for each.  At minimum, it would appear to place to burden of proof upon those who argue in favor of the reliability of Ghost 2003, given the magnitude of the difference.

I certainly agree that promoting “hot imaging” by Symantec is a sales strategy.  But the fact that Symantec wants us to buy “product X” isn’t really germane to the question of whether that product is reliable – which is the gist of this thread.  If you own a license for Ghost 2003 and are satisfied with the product, there is no compelling reason to ‘upgrade’ to Ghost 9/10 (at least until Windows Vista appears, which then may change the landscape).  Correspondingly, from my perspective, if you own a license for Ghost 9/10 and are satisfied with the product, there is no compelling reason to ‘down-grade’ to Ghost 2003.  Both products perform essentially the same function, and I am unaware of any reason to suspect that one is more or less reliable than the other.

Concerning “proof,” I do agree that there is no substitute for personal experience.  However, unless a user is willing to use both Ghost 2003 and Ghost 9/10, a decision for one or the other typically needs to be made.  For this reason, the core argument becomes based upon logical considerations combined with the experience of others – e.g., primarily corporate users.

Keep the commentary comin’!

Best wishes,
Pleonasm

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Christer on Nov 21st, 2005 at 7:07pm

Quote:
However, unless a user is willing to use both Ghost 2003 and Ghost 9/10, a decision for one or the other typically needs to be made.

I'm almost sure that I wouldn't be the first user to run Ghost 2003 and Ghost 9/10 in parallel during a "transition period". I am playing with the thought and I have a spare hard disk (would that one still be called a target disk) to play with. That white fluffy stuff has started emerging from higher altitudes, announcing the imminent arrival of Santa so if I get a yellow cardboard box for Christmas ...... :-/ ...... who knows.

I said "almost sure" and the reason is the issue with GoBack and Ghost 2003 not getting along on the same system. So, what's the situation with Ghost 9/10 and Ghost 2003? I assume that Ghost 9/10 could be paused if someone was running Ghost 2003 from the Windows Interface but that wouldn't be an issue for me, running the tasks from Ghost Boot Disks, right?

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by NightOwl on Nov 21st, 2005 at 8:15pm
Christer

El Pescador mentioned some time ago that Ghost 9.x would not install on the same system if Ghost 2003 was *installed*--i.e. the *Windows Interface*--the install program insisted that you un-install Ghost 2003 first.

But, there is no reason I can imagine that you would be prevented from doing various Ghost 2003 procedures from DOS--Ghost 9.x would be fast *asleep* and unaware of any Ghost 2003 in DOS!

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by NightOwl on Nov 21st, 2005 at 8:18pm
Pleonasm


Quote:
there is no compelling reason to ‘down-grade’ to Ghost 2003

There's that *attitude* I so enjoy in your posts  ;D !

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Christer on Nov 21st, 2005 at 8:29pm
NightOwl,


Quote:
... Ghost 9.x would not install on the same system if Ghost 2003 was *installed*--i.e. the *Windows Interface* ...

Hmm ...... :o ...... I actually use the Windows Interface to browse Images using Ghost Explorer. If *.gho and *.ghs are accepted by the "Ghost Explorer of Ghost 9/10", then there is no problem.

Ghost 2003 from DOS would still be the primary backup utility but as a start ...... 8) ...... I would be prepared to compromize on Ghost Explorer.

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by NightOwl on Nov 21st, 2005 at 8:52pm
Christer

I have Ghost 9.x which I have never installed--so I have the *Recovery Disk*.

When I boot to the *Recovery Environment*, the Ghost Explorer there was able to work with the older Ghost image file types of .gho and .ghs--so, maybe the Ghost 9.x and 10.x Ghost Explorer works okay in regular Windows with those older Ghost file types.

Or, maybe in the *Recovery Environment*, those file extensions call up the old Ghost Explorer program.

Any Ghost 9.x or 10.x'ers out there have old Ghost 2003 images to let us know about that?

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Brian on Nov 21st, 2005 at 9:27pm
The Ghost 9 Image Browser indicates it can open (from Windows)

*.v2i
*.iv2i
*.pqi
*.gho

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by El_Pescador on Nov 21st, 2005 at 9:45pm

NightOwl wrote on Nov 21st, 2005 at 8:52pm:
"... Any Ghost 9.x or 10.x'ers out there have old Ghost 2003 images to let us know about that?...

Here is an inexpensive way to become a Ghost 10.xer:

NORTON INTERNET SECURITY WITH GHOST

http://shop1.outpost.com/product/4620828

http://image.ak.outpost.com/art/rebates_pdf/4620828_2.pdf

http://image.ak.outpost.com/art/rebates_pdf/4620828_1.pdf

EP :'(


Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by NightOwl on Nov 21st, 2005 at 11:39pm
Brian

Thanks for the feedback!

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Brian on Nov 22nd, 2005 at 2:05am
NightOwl, as you use Ghost 2003 from floppies it's almost time to install Ghost 9 and have some playtime. The Image Browser works with your *.gho files.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Christer on Nov 22nd, 2005 at 4:40am
Brian,
thanks for the information!

Pesky,
I wonder if we will ever see those rebates in Sweden? They would make the purchase decision much easier!

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by NightOwl on Nov 22nd, 2005 at 10:41am
Christer

Looked at El Pescador's links--I wasn't aware that those rebates were restricted to USA only!

Looks like they may have dropped including Ghost 2003 along with Ghost 10!

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Christer on Nov 22nd, 2005 at 10:57am
NightOwl,

Quote:
I wasn't aware that those rebates were restricted to USA only!

Neither am I, it was just an assumption that they do not "ship overseas". I also assume that 25% VAT would be added when importing to Sweden.

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by NightOwl on Nov 22nd, 2005 at 11:14am
Brian

I've delayed installing Ghost 9.x because the install forces the un-install of Ghost 2003's Windows interface--and there are fair number of questions here on the forum about using Ghost 2003's Windows interface.  So, in order to bring up the scenario that someone is asking about in Ghost 2003--I've delayed installing Ghost 9.x.  (Also, I've been involved in some other necessary activities--limiting *playtime* for awhile  ;) ! )

I would like to say--your joining us here made that decision much easier--your expertise on all things Ghost 9.x, and helping others with questions has greatly expanded the scope of the forum's knowledge.  Thanks for your ongoing input!

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by NightOwl on Nov 22nd, 2005 at 11:22am
Christer


Quote:
Neither am I,


The rebate actually states:


Quote:
Valid only in the U.S. International submissions are not valid. Limit one rebate per customer.
Valid only at Fry’s Electronics.


But, looks like they do ship *International Orders*--but, not sure about added *VAT*--does that stand for *Value Added Tax*?

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Christer on Nov 22nd, 2005 at 12:26pm

Quote:
... *VAT*--does that stand for *Value Added Tax*?

Yes and our government love it ...... ::) ...... !

If the merchandise is shipped from a private address (with a person attached to it) the value has to be higher than ~$100 but as soon as it is shipped from a company, everything is scrutinized and taxed.

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Rad on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 2:08pm
Sounds like you need a friend states-side .. to send you plainly-wrapped packages.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Christer on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 2:40pm
Rad,
I have actually done that when I was buying a few PDA's at eBay. None of the sellers shipped internationally and then the VAT issue.

The sellers shipped to my friend in Mill Hall PA. When she had received all my purchases, she split them into $100 (the limit for VAT when it is privately declared) batches and I received three packages.

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Rad on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 2:55pm
You're a step ahead of me.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Pleonasm on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 3:19pm
NightOwl, concerning Reply #30, my comment about a “‘down-grade’ to Ghost 2003” was not intended to represent “attitude.”  ;)  I did use single quotes around the phrase ‘down-grade’ specifically to indicate that the use was intended to be colloquial in nature.  It is also commonplace to associate “up” with advances in time and “down” with the reserve, so one would say that “Ghost 10.0 is an upgrade to Ghost 9.0” or, correspondingly, “Ghost 9.0 is a down-grade from Ghost 10.0” so-to-speak.  Hopefully, I did not offend.

By the way, I have nothing against Ghost 2003.  It is a proven application that is widely recognized to have a high degree of reliability.  However, perhaps it my own personality, but I do have an issue with arguments are not tightly conceived, supported, or are lacking in rigor.  The argument that somehow Ghost 9/10 is less reliable than Ghost 2003 is a member of that set, in my opinion (e.g., "DOS is our tripod...").  So, as you see, I’m not really arguing against Ghost 2003 per se so much as I am rebelling against the quality of the argument put forward by Ghost 2003 advocates who – for some unknown psychological reason – feel ‘threatened’ (?) by the equality of the performance of Ghost 9/10.

Best wishes,
Pleonasm

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by xtmw on Dec 8th, 2005 at 6:18pm
I have used ghost for over 8 years. I need both ghost 2003 and ghost 10. They are two different products used in entirely different ways.

Ghost 2003 - When I am working on various machines doing HDD upgrades, security backup (just to be sure I don't lose any customer data), building multiple similar systems for customers, etc.

Ghost 9/10 - Easy to use continuous backups when minimal effort is required. No matter how important I tell my clients backing up their data is, they will have a hard time doing it consitantly! Even if it's as simple as clicking an icon! With Ghost 9/10, once it's installed and a schedule is set to image to a secure location, there is no required user ACTION, which is critical because the hardest thing about backing up is doing it religiously.

As far as reliabilty, I have had no problems with either product.
I first used ghost to configure 500 systems (rentals) for H&R block . Used an image stored on a server and floppy boot disks with auto switches set to get the image. It still took a while, but ever since then I have realized the incredible power disk imaging provides...

Use both - Be happy!
Don't forget that Ghost 2003 comes with Ghost 9/10!

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Rad on Dec 8th, 2005 at 9:39pm
Thx for contributing.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Robin Eddy on Jan 30th, 2006 at 11:33pm
I am about to use GHOST 9 to make a new  cloan of "C:" drive on a "Western Digital Caviar Special Edition 320GB ATA-100 8MB Cache ",
which is winging its way by mail to me as we speak.

Questions ?,
Do I need to use Ghost9 or will there be cloan tool software with the new drive that is adequate?
If I use Ghost9 will I have to alter DEP & Boot.ini as advised on forum as I have XP Pro & SP2 already installed or should I try to load Ghost9 first as I am not keen on messing with the system if I don't have to. Also is it undoable & would it give me problems if the cloan does not work?
Is there anything else I should know before battle commences?
Any advice would be appreciated, thank you from Merry England.

System as follows:-

Drive
C:
Description
Local Fixed Disk no partitions
Compressed
No
File System
NTFS
Size
8.03 GB (8,620,060,672 bytes)
Free Space
1,014.18 MB (1,063,448,576 bytes)

Drive
D:
Description
Local Fixed Disk no partitions
Compressed
No
File System
NTFS
Size
167.68 GB (180,043,120,640 bytes)
Free Space
32.36 GB (34,746,933,248 bytes)


Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Brian on Jan 31st, 2006 at 12:13am
Robin,

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1117581957;start=



Quote:
will I have to alter DEP & Boot.ini

Forget you ever heard this about DEP etc.


http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ghost.nsf/docid/1998121814425425

I'm not familiar with compressed drives.



Your C drive is too full at 12% free. Try to keep NTFS partitions more than 15% free space. You really need to move data from this drive or you will have trouble with the Copy Drive and with defragmentation.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Robin Eddy on Jan 31st, 2006 at 8:40am
Thanks for prompt reply, new drive has arrived so will start clone soon but there was no software with it anyway (OEM).
Sorry my text layout was not as clear as it should have been, my drives are not compressed. So it should be straightforward I hope.
I have tried to empty my c: drive but a lot of it is in the windows folder,  (532mb in service pack files) for instance and (178mb of $hf_mig$) which I think might be uninstall files put on by service Pac 2, if so can I delete them or at least move them to my “D” drive without incurring problems with system?.
I was concerned about  “DEP & Boot.ini as advised on http://service1.symantec.com/support/powerquest.nsf/pfdocs/2004101410380862,
As I have XP Pro & SP2 already installed”, but if you say ignore it that’s what I will do.  Ta for help…………….Robin..

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by NightOwl on Jan 31st, 2006 at 10:37am
Robin Eddy


Quote:
new drive has arrived so will start clone soon but there was no software with it anyway (OEM).

Probably can get whatever software is shipped with retail versions from the manufacturer's website--if that's what you want.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Robin Eddy on Jan 31st, 2006 at 11:49am
Thanks for that.
Any comment on the rest of my message?........Robin..

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Pleonasm on Jan 31st, 2006 at 11:58am
Robin, concerning the Data Execution Prevention (DEP) policy, this is a security mechanism that was introduced with Windows XP SP2.  It is intended to prevent the running of code which is embedded in memory data blocks, typically a characteristic of viruses or spyware.

Ignoring Ghost for the moment, it is advisable to set DEP to “OptOut” as a preventative security measure.  Search www.Microsoft.com for “Data Execution Prevention” to learn more about this subject.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Brian on Jan 31st, 2006 at 7:56pm
Pleo,

In or Out? I don't understand it. I just follow orders. In is the Microsoft default.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Pleonasm on Feb 1st, 2006 at 11:31am
Brian, “By default, DEP is only turned on for essential Windows operating system programs and services.”  Using the “OptOut” specification extends coverage to “all processes,” which is obviously more comprehensive.  Enabling DEP for all processes is one additional protection against the running of malicious code on your PC.

See the Microsoft article, “A detailed description of the Data Execution Prevention (DEP) feature in Windows XP Service Pack 2” at:
  http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=875352&product=windowsxpsp2

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Ghost4me.John on Feb 1st, 2006 at 12:06pm
Pleo, thanks for the info.

Doesn't DEP require a motherboard that supports it?  I think that's why it is rarely a probablem with Ghost 9 because I thought DEP requires both the switch setting as well as a motherboard and bios that will enforce it.

Title: Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Post by Pleonasm on Feb 1st, 2006 at 1:39pm
Ghost4me, DEP is enforced through hardware, if that capability is supported on the PC; otherwise, through software.  In either case, utilizing DEP is a mechanism that may help to block security intrusions.

None of the applications that I run my PC have been negatively impacted by activating DEP.

Radified Community Forums » Powered by YaBB 2.4!
YaBB © 2000-2009. All Rights Reserved.