Hey everyone - I wanted to draw from your experience.

Re: Imaging

In the old days, I'd install a second IDE drive, I'd boot a Win98 floppy, put in a second floppy with Ghost.exe on it, and go to bat imaging the machine or doing a complete copy.

I bought and installed Ghost 10 online from Symantec, and there is no Ghost.exe to do this.  I found a website with DOS USB drivers (www.bootdisk.com/usb -- I think) so that I can write to a USB drive, but there is no Ghost.exe!   I tried to ghost recovery CD ISO that I had to download from Symantec as part of what I paid for, but it can only restore "image points" and not create them.  Am I missing something here?

This is what I want:  I want to boot from a CD, a floppy, or USB key (prefer methods for all three), plug in a USB external disk, and make a direct image of the machine as a file on the USB external disk.

How can I do this?  Your help is absolutely appreciated.

Sam
sam@batcave.ca

- forgot to mention, that I would be imaging Win2K, WinXP Home, WinXP Pro, and possibly the occasional Win2K / Win2K3 server using this technology.  I would assume that all these machines would be using NTFS.  I know this causes a wrench in plans, but I can't be the only person in the world frustrated by Ghost 10 and this process.

Again, thanks.
Sam
sam@batcave.ca

Quote:

This is what I want:  I want to boot from a CD, a floppy, or USB key (prefer methods for all three), plug in a USB external disk, and make a direct image of the machine as a file on the USB external disk.

Sam, what you want to do can't be done with Ghost 10. Sorry, but you need to read the manual.

Sam

The answer is *42*!

Actually--Ghost 2003--and for a better USB DOS HDD driver--here's a better one:

A Better USB 2.0 DOS Driver for Ghost + More!

ghost 9/10 is not really ghost:

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

I'm with you Rad. But Symantec didn't retain the name Drive Image which I would have preferred.

Suggestions?

The only suggestion I have seen from you folks has been Ghost 2003 -- where can I find it?  Haven't seen an online retailer that has it.

I used the DOS USB driver someone recommended here, however it still doesn't map a drive against it - just identifies it / probably provides the OS BIOS info for the drive.  Still inaccessible - possibly because its 300GB and NTFS?  Thoughts here?

Lastly - does Symantec realize that we used and remembered Ghost because of its simpleness back in the day?  Not impressed.

Sam,

http://www.runtime.org/dixml.htm

Run from a Reatogo/BartPE CD will do everything you are asking.

http://www.reatogo.de/

Image and restore from the boot CD, any operating system, networking, external HD, the works. And it's free.

At least look at it while you are waiting for Ghost 2003 to work.

Sam


Quote:

Ghost 2003 -- where can I find it?  Haven't seen an online retailer that has it.

It's becoming a *legacy* *old* program--last update in 12/03 or 01/04--that's *old*?!  So, probably will not find it as a stand-alone purchase--but, it's included in the retail installation CD of Ghost 9.x and 10.x--because those versions only work on WinXP or other NT based OS's with *.net*--so for older systems like Win98 or ME (which are also old, abandoned, digital riffraff), Symantec still includes Ghost 2003 to cover these *legacy* systems.  I do not think Ghost 2003 is included in the internet downloads of Ghost 9/10.x purchases.


Quote:

I used the DOS USB driver someone recommended here, however it still doesn't map a drive against it - just identifies it / probably provides the OS BIOS info for the drive.  Still inaccessible - possibly because its 300GB and NTFS?  Thoughts here?

DOS can not access a NTFS partitions--so no drive letter will be assigned, and no access possible--unless you load a DOS driver that can access NTFS--but the *free* DOS NTFS drivers can only *read* NTFS--not write to NTFS--but Ghost 2003 will be able to see, create and image of,  and write to NTFS partitions.

For an example:

See:  NTFSDOS v3.02


Quote:

Lastly - does Symantec realize that we used and remembered Ghost because of its simpleness back in the day?  Not impressed.

Rad said it all!--*ghost 9/10 is not really ghost*!

In my opinion, comments such as "ghost 9/10 is not really ghost" do a disservice to the readership of the forum by creating unnecessary confusion.

Symantec owns the copyright to the label Ghost, and it can manage that brand as it so chooses.  To state the blatantly obvious, Ghost 9/10 is Ghost.

The logic behind as "ghost 9/10 is not really ghost" would equally well demand that Norton AntiVirus be called "Center Point Software AntiVirus", since Norton acquired the CPS product many years ago and it became the basis of the current NAV.

It is all rather silly, no?  To quote Shakespeare, "What's in a name?  That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet."

Pleonasm

Hmmm...little *touchy* here!

I have said this elsewhere on this forum in the past when posters have complained about Symantec's poor choice of *words* in their documentation--*it's Symantec's software, and they can choose to call XXXXX whatever they want...* even though it may not be helpful in describing the function of their product.

But...is it not Symantec that has *created unnecessary confusion* by using the name of a *classic* program (Ghost--DOS based) to describe their latest, but not similar program--couldn't be that they are using a marketing ploy to try to avoid the past *negative* views of the original program (Drive Image) that their current program is most like and based on (Ghost 9/10)--in order to sell their program based on a more positively viewed DOS based program (Ghost)--why did they not use the name *Norton Drive Image*, as they have done for *Norton PartitionMagic*?


Quote:

"What's in a name?  That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet."

But...a rose is a *rose*!  Ghost 9/10 is not *Ghost before Ghost 9/10*!

All good points, NightOwl.

It is an interesting hypothesis that Symantec choose not to use the "Drive Image" nomenclature for Ghost 9/10 because they are trying "to avoid the past *negative* views of the original program (Drive Image)".  However, if that were the case, then one would wonder why Symantec purchased PowerQuest at all, if the reputation of "Drive Image" was so poor (which I do not perceive as being accurate).

My own guess is that the label "Ghost" (for Ghost 2003) had a brand presence in the corporate market that exceeded that of Drive Image, whereas in the consumer market the opposite was the case.  Since the majority of Symantec's revenue is derived from corporations, it would only seem to make solid business sense to retain the brand equity for the "Ghost" label so as to maximize marketing effectiveness for that more important target segment.

For Partition Magic, that label had a strong presence in the consumer market – which is the target segment for the product.  Again, it therefore makes sense to retain the Partition Magic brand equity.

In short, I suspect that Symantec's decisions on product naming are almost exclusively driven by marketing and brand equity considerations - and not by technology.

To quote Gertrude Stein, "A rose is a rose is a rose."  ;)

Pleonasm wrote on Dec 11^th, 2005 at 6:18pm:

All good points, NightOwl. It is an interesting hypothesis that Symantec choose not to use the "Drive Image" nomenclature for Ghost 9/10 because they are trying "to avoid the past *negative* views of the original program (Drive Image)".  However, if that were the case, then one would wonder why Symantec purchased PowerQuest at all, if the reputation of "Drive Image" was so poor (which I do not perceive as being accurate).

OK, I confess.  I used Drive Image for many years over many versions.  I always thought Drive Image (and Partition Magic) had a *good* reputation. Powerquest had good tech support too.  It appeared to me that Symantec bought the two because they were good technical products.  Note that Symantec hasn't basically changed Partition Magic at all except putting their brand logo in it.

DI and Ghost were truely competitors.  It would be like arguing whether Word or WordPerfect was better at the time.  I don't want to start that thread, just commenting that they were strong competitors to each other.

Certainly, Partition Magic was/is a good program, te best in Powerquest's arsenal., and the bets of its kind.

I guess we'll never know why Symantec chose to use the name "Ghost" to describe its "new" Powerquest-based product.

The reason, I feel, they bought Drive Image is cuz DI offers hot-imaging, which offers ease-of-use features not available with a DOS-based  product.

Perspective from someone familiar with Drive Image:

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

I don't think the problem is with Drive Image as much as it is with trying to image Windows from Windows (previously called "hot-imaging").

In my opinion, you get ease-of-use at the expense of reliability.

We have been round this tree before. I don't care which product users choos, lomng as the understand how each respective app works.

This went off topic quick.

Anyway, thank you for your time and help.

I'll try to locate Ghost 2003.

Samir