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 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1170184062

Message started by Pleonasm on Jan 30th, 2007 at 1:07pm

Title: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Jan 30th, 2007 at 1:07pm
Now that Windows Vista has been released, do we know if Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 is compatible?  If not compatible, are there known work-around solutions to identified problems?

While not confirmed, some users have reported difficulties:
    http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winvista/t1152641527
    http://forums.windrivers.com/archive/index.php/t-77138.html

Who will the first to “test drive” Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 with Windows Vista and report back the results?  ”Inquiring minds want to know!”

P.S.:  I am cautiously hoping that the operating system and the application are compatible (or, at least can productively coexist).  Many individuals have a long history (and comfort level) with Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2, a relationship that ideally will transition into the world of Windows Vista.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Rad on Jan 30th, 2007 at 11:23pm
Yeah, big question there, Pleo.

I do not have a copy of Vista yet.

Is the file system the problem?

Vista uses a new file system?

Most folks wait until the first service pack before jumping on board a new OS.

What about Ghost 9 & 10?

Did I hear somebody say that Vista comes with its own imaging software?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Jan 31st, 2007 at 11:35am
Rad, it’s only speculation at this point in time, but based upon this thread, it appears that Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 may have difficulty with the new MBR structure used by Windows Vista (see Reply #4), and possibly with the new “soft link” and BitLocker features, too (see Reply #11).

I do not believe that Ghost 9/Ghost 10 is compatible with Windows Vista.  Symantec is scheduled to release Ghost 12 in late April, 2007 for this need.

Windows Vista Ultimate does include its own image backup capability (see this Microsoft presentation), although I have not yet read any feedback from users on the tool.

I am hoping that some enterprising and adventurous member of the forum acquires a copy of Windows Vista and reports back the results of image creation/restoration using Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Jan 31st, 2007 at 12:10pm
There are several Microsoft (and other) newsgroups on Vista, including this Microsoft one:

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windows.vista.general/topics?hl=en

From what I have read, here's just a couple thoughts and concerns:

1.) Microsoft Image Backup is only available in Vista Business and Vista Ultimate versions.

This leaves the door open for other vendors for all the other versions.  Acronis True Image 10 already claims it supports Vista.  Symantec appears to require Ghost 12 to support Vista, so I would assume that Ghost 2003, 9, 10, S&R will not work on Vista.  

That is not surprising to me considering that updating from Ghost 9 to 10 to S&R is really about getting more motherboard/chipset/hardware support vs. new functionality.  Most problems with older versions of Ghost deal with getting that older version to work with usb2 drives, sata drives, sata dvd drives, core 2 duo and other motherboards, etc., etc.

New operating systems seem to eventually require users to purchase and update/upgrade all kinds of software and hardware.  The vendors love it!

2.) The Vista Image Backup compresses your backup images when writing to DVD, but does NOT when backing up to another hard drive.  

3.) The Vista Image Backup "Complete PC Backup" takes images of ALL of your drives and partitions.  That supposedly is the safest (and only) option available to insure that the boot drive and system drive are both backed up, as they may be on different drives.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Feb 1st, 2007 at 1:14pm
Useful comments on this topic can be found at:
    http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=598662&SiteID=17
    http://www.chrissanders.org/?p=50

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Rad on Feb 2nd, 2007 at 5:30pm
let's stick-ify this thread for a while, so we don't forget about it .. especially since vista was just released. are there any other vista related ghost threads we need to watch?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Fonk on Feb 12th, 2007 at 2:11pm
I have used Symantec Ghost 8.3, in dos of course.

While i was testing Vista, yeah it does work.

Some people like me say that Ghost (in dos) is much faster in a simpler menu.

MBR is e wierd thing. Same ghost for the dos explorer. It can read NTFS and MBR. But, once you change a partitions specs it might not be able to 'see' the folder and files in the dos explorer (Dos browser bij Ghost)

This realy is the only bad thing about ghost. So, having vista changing also MBR it might need better testing.

Aslong as you keep it very simple:

1) have a partition D:\ and put there the *.GHO
2) Have a partition C:\ OS

This works if your do NOT change the D:\ partition specs. like : MBR, Increaings, Decreasing space etc.

Wy i am telling this is because NO body can tell me this is true.
The symantec support is very bad. This forum is the best support.

Acronis support is great!! Yes, even if you do not buy True image yet they ging in 24 hours support (free) via email.

This is a thing that Symantec / Norton will never do. Pleae note this is my experiance, maybe some others have luck.

This i understand wy users tell to use acronis.
But realy Ghost is faster UI wise (Again -> i am only talking about DOS)

You do not need to install ghost in windows, why the hell would you :)

The test: How about imaging 300 GB ?

Will ghost do this as save as Acronis? No idea, i have still to test this.

Now, Vista, till now i installed vista on C:\ made a Vista.gho on D:\
Then i format C:\ and installed Windows Xp or 2003 test version on C:\

Here we go :

Make a new image of C:\ with windows XP in dos (again) and put that image on D:\

So, we have now on D:\

Winxp.GHO
Vista.GHO

and the running system is windows xp.

Lets start booting from diskette and put back the prevouse installed Vista, so overwriting Winxp.

Yes peeps that does work.

But, i do not know if running checkdisk after the reset that there wil be 0 problems.

You alwas get small incoisensec (sorry for my spelling)
in $$1 or soms thing like this.

Ghost weak part is MBR, NTFS Bootsector. If changed it can not read the folders and files in dos anymore.

Aslong as symantec is not willing to help with this supject, i make up my own mind and stay believeing this.

So from my tests say a OS of 4 GB.

Yes, aslong as you DO NOT change or resize the D:\ Ghost used partition all is oke.
If checkdisk makes errors no idea, but it looks oke.

Restoring visa.gho to C = oke
Restoring later winxp.gho over c:\vista = still oke.

After installing Vista you get $Recycler folder in D:\
When resetting winxp.gho to C:\(OS) you can delete that folder.
When later resetting Vista.gho (over the same C:\ partition) you have the new $Recycler in D:\ and the Recycler form XP with the ID number in it.

To sum up:

1) Symantec need better help via email, even if a custommer does not yet know what to buy. Normal shops give advice before you buy, so i see no differance in webshops / email support.

2) Symantec nees to repair teh way Ghost.exe reads file structures -Bitmap - NTFS specs - Boot sector etc.

Till now all goes well if you again  do NOT change the partition D:\ where you put your GHO's from dos when imaging the C:\ install OS (say 20 GB)

The above problems are 0,0 to Acronis in DOS.
And i am talking about version 8.x. I did not buy 9.0 acronis true image.


The big question because Vista is also getting bigger then say XP. Is what program is more SAVE

Say you what to image 200 GB ? to D:\
So, C:\ OS is like 200 GB.

Moste people say Acronis is mutch saver than Ghost in dos, because of the better reading of NTFS structures.
And yeah i do believe that.

Again, for the easy UI i still use Ghost.

i will test a partition of 260 GB and put it on D:\. Will than delete all data from that 260 GB partition and see IF ghost resets the data correct.

only dos, only dos!!!! This realy is the only way to test if Acronis OR Ghost is save to use.


Imagen? if your Windows is gone? What will you use to rest ? ---> DOS boot!!

So please use and test ghost in dos.

Change the partition specs of D:\ and you will see that Ghost in dos got a problem 'seeing' the data.
My advice is, make a partition for the images on d:\ and do NOT change the internal specs like NTFS bootsector, 2nd bootsector, partition tables etc.
Then from my experiance you are pretty fine

Symantec USE your support to custommers els you will not win from actronis.

Greets,
Fonk

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by ben_mott on Feb 12th, 2007 at 4:40pm
@ Fonk ,
Thanks for all that information.
is your D: partition FAT32 (where the *.gho images live ?
Regards Ben

:)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Fonk on Feb 12th, 2007 at 4:47pm
Yeah, FAT23 works better because it is better supported, even tough NTFS works.

No Ben, my 2nd Partition in Drive 1 (Total 320 GB)
Is NTFS and about 300 GB space.

You should have:

Primary Master IDE
Primary Partition 1 (Active) C:\ (Your OS)

Primary Partition 2 (Not Active) D:\ (Your DATA en GHO)

Active = The bootable startup Partition. This is normaly C:\

I only use Primary Partitions not Extended or Logical Drives, cause for me it makes things to complex.
I also use only Basic drive setup, not Dynamic
Wy?

Because if anything ever goes wrong the dos utilities to recover your broken partitions are mutch better supported with the normal Basic drives then Dynamic.

However, if you have RAID thats a other subject :)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by ben_mott on Feb 13th, 2007 at 3:45pm
thanks Fonk,

So basically you are saying that ghost.exe (8.3) works from dos
and makes a ghost image of Vista partition and restores it back
and boots ok
I know it works with Xp as have used it that way before :
http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=14127&st=23

but was not sure about VISTA as i do not have a copy
as yet and when I get one it would not be Ultimate
so I will be using Ghost for back up and recovery.
Thanks for all that Information
Regards Ben

:)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by MadtKrandle on Feb 14th, 2007 at 9:40pm
Yes, I'm curious as well.

Is this something that you say you've accomplished Fonk?

I just acquired a couple Vista versions and was meaning to try it....  unfortunately my computers won't support it I don't think (they're old, problems with the Vista Setup which is different than XP).

I will try both Ghost 8.2/2003 when I do it as well.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Brian on Feb 14th, 2007 at 9:54pm
http://www.multibooters.co.uk/cloning.html

I saw these 3 entries on the Terabyte Unlimited site but the page isn't available at present.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Feb 15th, 2007 at 12:15pm
FYI – Acronis True Image 10 Home claims to support Windows Vista.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by jjbtnc on Feb 16th, 2007 at 12:37pm

John. wrote on Jan 31st, 2007 at 12:10pm:
2.) The Vista Image Backup compresses your backup images when writing to DVD, but does NOT when backing up to another hard drive.  

3.) The Vista Image Backup "Complete PC Backup" takes images of ALL of your drives and partitions.  That supposedly is the safest (and only) option available to insure that the boot drive and system drive are both backed up, as they may be on different drives.



mmm......does the 'Complete PC Backup' use compression when backing up to another hard drive?  Seeing as it images ALL drives and partitions that could be a pretty big image!!!!!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by ben_mott on Feb 16th, 2007 at 2:01pm
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=68
it proves that Vista backup works using Vista imaging utility.

Surprisingly, the image file that CompletePC Backup produces doesn’t use the Windows Imaging (WIM) format used in Vista’s installation process. Instead, it creates a large file with a VHD file name extension, plus a slew of small XML files. That VHD extension is the same one used by virtual hard drives in both Virtual Server 2005 and Virtual PC, but I haven’t been able to confirm whether the two formats are actually the same. If the formats are identical, then (in theory) one could extract individual files from a backup image with relative ease.


Like commercial backup software such as Symantec Ghost, Vista backup can take a complete image of your hard drive, track changes and continue to backup only those changes, and of course backup individual files, specific file types and folders.

Just like Ghost, Vista backup lets you restore a complete hard drive from an image, which is most useful for corporations, that create a drive image which is then gets duplicated on many computers.

Maybe the most significant new feature Microsot introduced with Vista backup is the Previous Versions feature.
Have you ever accidentally saved over a file you were working on? Accidental file deletion or modification is a common cause of data loss. This feature automatically creates point-in-time copies of files as you work, so you can quickly and easily retrieve versions of a document you may have accidentally deleted, even after you emptied your recycle bin.


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Fonk on Feb 16th, 2007 at 3:34pm
I must say that in my test it was still the beta version of Vista.

So i realy do not know if some mbr structures has changed sinds the last version.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by MadtKrandle on Feb 20th, 2007 at 10:17am
I just tried out Vista,

I think it was pretty cool.  Very graphical; some say that a PC requires newer, more accelerated hardware in order to support the GUI of Vista.  I set it up on this PC here and it went without problem (slowly).  Alot of my drivers were not recognized for things like ethernet (PCI) cards and my DSL modem (wasn't recognized either).

So I slapped a 4 DVD Ghost 2003 image  of my XP setup back on this and it's working great again in XP.

This computer contains:

Pentium III 600mhz
512mb RAM
80g HDD (Seagate Barracuda)
Couple ethernet cards, USB card, Sound Card, fax modem, ....

Now I tried to set Vista up on an older PC and setup would not even function when I booted from the Vista DVD.  The setup files would load and I'd get a "Detected changed hardware recently"...

This computer contained a Pentium II 500mhz,

so who knows.

I'm purchasing a new desktop soon so I can use this one here for crash testing....   I'd like to put Vista on here and just use it for play.

Madt

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by ben_mott on Feb 20th, 2007 at 2:14pm
very interesting step by step Vista upgrade work around:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=196

http://www.instantvista.com/windows-vista-upgrade.html

the above 2 links are OK


regards Ben
:)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by VirtualLarry on Feb 23rd, 2007 at 5:05am
Those URLs are corrupted.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Feb 23rd, 2007 at 1:00pm
One option for image backup with Windows Vista those preferring Ghost 2003 is the Symantec Ghost Solution Suite (GSS).  As far as I can determine,  however, a user needs to purchase a minimum of 5 licenses at $39.20 each.

Does anyone know of options to purchase individual licenses of GSS?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Rama on Feb 24th, 2007 at 12:07am
In my two tests, I find Ghost 8.2 runs faster than Ghost 2003. Would like to see Vista user's feedback of how Ghost 8.2 performs. If the results are satisfactory,  most need not purchase another software since the recovery disks of Ghost 10 and NS&R has Ghost 8.2.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by critter748 on Feb 27th, 2007 at 3:49pm
Only last month I acquired Vista Ultimate through work…
So before I completely kill XP I made a Ghost 2003 image to the D: Partition.
Inserted Vista CD and preceded installing Vista to the C: Partition and formatting C: in the process.
Both C: and D: Partitions are NTFS on One 200gig SATA Hard Disk.

Once Vista was loaded the WoW factor for me was the lack of driver support. It has no SoundBlaster Live 5.1 driver!  >:(  
(5.1 channel and Game port not supported) it does have a generic 2 channel driver for this card though.

Anyways back to topic…
After quite a while trying to set up Vista with my hardware and Software requirements I decided to go back to XP.
Vista is just too new or I’m too old…

Using a Bootable Ghost 2003 Floppy Disk I recovered C: from the XP Ghost image on D:  all was sweet after quite a while, waiting for the image to load back.
How good was it to have XP back…  8)

Regards

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Brian on Feb 27th, 2007 at 4:18pm
critter748,

If you are interested, this video from Terabyte Unlimited shows how to install Vista along with WinXP and boot each quite separately. Not dual booting the "Microsoft Way".

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/videos/bing/vistanew.wmv

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 2nd, 2007 at 11:30am
Concerning Reply #19, I did call the sales department at Symantec and asked if there was a way to purchase a single copy license of the Symantec Ghost Solution Suite (GSS).  Unfortunately, the answer was “no.”  A user needs to purchase a minimum of 5 licenses at $39.20 each.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by adenewton on Mar 4th, 2007 at 12:46pm
Ok guys here goes,

I've got a machine that i'm currently testing Vista on, basically making sure all my applications and software that i use etc all work in Vista ok.

So far i've been doing pretty well, those that didn't work out the box i've found fixes for. Except 1, which is my mobile phone, which i can't do without, so until Sony Ericsson fix that i won't be upgrading on my main machine for a while yet.

Ghost 2003 was the next program to pop up on install that it was likely to have incompatiblity issues.

So after doing a google search that's how i ended up in this thread.

Didn't look like many people had took full tests so i've took it upon myself to do so.

For simplicity purposes i used Vista's disk management software to shrink my hard drive's C: partition to make way for another partition, and i would attempt to create a copy of the eintire contents of the C: drive to a .gho file on the other partition.

I must also state that i am going to be doing this using the old fashioned DOS version and booting via a USB floppy disk drive to boot into Ghost and doing it from outside Windows, as i am old skool!

To enable yourself to be able to get the latest build after installing Ghost you first need to do the following before installing ghost, especially if you want access to SATA drives.

http://service1.symantec.com/Support/sharedtech.nsf/docid/2007010219171513

Follow the instructions to install the latest version of liveupdate, and then download the hosts file in step 4 to the correct folder. Vista might not want to give the file it's proper name, so it might be easier to download the file to the desktop first, rename it if you have too, to: Settings.Updates.LiveUpdate and then move it into the correct folder.

Install Ghost, ignore all the warning messages.

Carry out 2 liveupdate session's making sure you choose the archive server. You'll need the latest build especially if your using SATA drives.

Create the ghost boot disk using using boot disk wizard in ghost utilites.

reboot machine with floppy inserted into usb floppy drive.

Created an image fine.

Back into Vista, i had to change the ownership of the files ghost created so i could access them in ghost explorer (do this is security tab of the properties for the file, you may have to turn off simple file sharing to do this)

I could then access the image fine in ghost explorer and also modify it.

Next, was to see if i could re-image the machine back from the image i had just created.

And i could, it worked perfectly.

So hopefully that means that Ghost 2003 DOS version works fine with Vista, well it did for me anyway, and Ghost Explorer.

I did then try using the version inside  windows and it kept telling me i needed admin rights, which i did have. So i guess the inside windows version doesn't look so rosey, but i never use it anyway, and am happy that the DOS version works.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by MadtKrandle on Mar 5th, 2007 at 6:34am
Excellent!

Glad it worked for ya...

It's nice when people post results 8)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 5th, 2007 at 11:53am
Adenewton, thanks for the post.  A few questions...
  • To be clear, are you saying that you successfully created and restored an image of Windows Vista using Ghost 2003 in DOS?

  • What edition of Windows Vista did you use?

  • Did you need to employ any command-line switches with Ghost 2003 to make this work (e.g., the “-fdsp” switch)?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Mar 5th, 2007 at 11:58am

adenewton wrote on Mar 4th, 2007 at 12:46pm:
Next, was to see if i could re-image the machine back from the image i had just created.
And i could, it worked perfectly.
So hopefully that means that Ghost 2003 DOS version works fine with Vista, well it did for me anyway, and Ghost Explorer.

But, can you restore your image to a new/unused/blank hard drive (assume you have a hard drive failure in the future)?  And will Vista work in those circumstance?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by adenewton on Mar 5th, 2007 at 1:49pm

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 5th, 2007 at 11:53am:
Adenewton, thanks for the post.  A few questions...
  • To be clear, are you saying that you successfully created and restored an image of Windows Vista using Ghost 2003 in DOS?

  • What edition of Windows Vista did you use?

  • Did you need to employ any command-line switches with Ghost 2003 to make this work (e.g., the “-fdsp” switch)?


Yup, i used Ghost 2003 in DOS mode.

It was Vista Ultimate

Didn't use any command line switches.

:)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by adenewton on Mar 5th, 2007 at 1:50pm

John. wrote on Mar 5th, 2007 at 11:58am:
But, can you restore your image to a new/unused/blank hard drive (assume you have a hard drive failure in the future)?  And will Vista work in those circumstance?


When i've happily finished trialling my applications in Vista, i will trash the HDD and attempt to do this.

At the moment I don't want to have to install from scratch and start all over again.

:)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Mar 5th, 2007 at 1:57pm

adenewton wrote on Mar 5th, 2007 at 1:50pm:
When i've happily finished trialling my applications in Vista, i will trash the HDD and attempt to do this.
At the moment I don't want to have to install from scratch and start all over again.

Thanks.  I was more curious in removing and putting your hard drive aside, and then using a DIFFERENT hard drive to restore with.  There seems to be some boot sector differences with Vista, which might make Ghost restore work with the same hard drive, but not with a new one.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by adenewton on Mar 5th, 2007 at 2:10pm
No worries, i'll use a different HDD, i've got enough lying about.

I'll use boot and nuke on it first and then Partition Magic so it's got zilch on it.

I'll try and do this later in the week, won't get chance tonight or tomorrow sadly.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Brian on Mar 5th, 2007 at 2:14pm
I saw some reports that restoring with Ghost 8.* worked for some people but not for others. That's why Ghost 11 was released. It does work properly with Vista.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Brian on Mar 5th, 2007 at 2:16pm

adenewton wrote on Mar 5th, 2007 at 2:10pm:
I'll use boot and nuke on it first

Does this zero the First track?


PS. Just checked the web site. Looks like it does.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by adenewton on Mar 5th, 2007 at 2:49pm

Brian wrote on Mar 5th, 2007 at 2:14pm:
I saw some reports that restoring with Ghost 8.* worked for some people but not for others. That's why Ghost 11 was released. It does work properly with Vista.


Looks that way, i just ghosted to a comptely different disk and Vista would not start. Telling me files files were corrupt and to use the repair cd.

so my experiment at least proves

a) you can ghost to a hdd that has previously had vista installed

b) but not to a clean hdd.

arse.

Does ghost 11 include an old skool DOS version? As this could proove to be a problem if we ever upgrade to Vista at our company as alot of our imaging is done through ghost images on dvd that boot from the disk and just load the image straight on.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Brian on Mar 5th, 2007 at 2:57pm

adenewton wrote on Mar 5th, 2007 at 2:49pm:
Does ghost 11 include an old skool DOS version?

Yes, it's still DOS. It is an updated ver 8.*. The package is Ghost Solution Suite 2.

http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/products/overview.jsp?pcid=1025&pvid=865_1

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by adenewton on Mar 5th, 2007 at 3:01pm
Excellent, guess i'll be upgrading ghost.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Brian on Mar 5th, 2007 at 3:04pm
This is about cloning and multi-booting but there was discussion about those edits in the BootIt forum at one stage. They said make the edits before imaging. I don't know if it's relevant for you but if you have time, would you like to try? I may be on the wrong track.

http://www.multibooters.co.uk/cloning.html


Quote:
bcdedit /set {bootmgr} device boot
bcdedit /set {default} device boot
bcdedit /set {default} osdevice boot

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by adenewton on Mar 5th, 2007 at 3:26pm

Brian wrote on Mar 5th, 2007 at 3:04pm:
This is about cloning and multi-booting but there was discussion about those edits in the BootIt forum at one stage. They said make the edits before imaging. I don't know if it's relevant for you but if you have time, would you like to try? I may be on the wrong track.

http://www.multibooters.co.uk/cloning.html


Interesting article.

It could also be that the Vista DVD will just repair the winload.exe file anyway, as this was the file that was 'corrupted'

I'll attempt the 'repair' option from the DVD first,  as well as doing the above command line changes and creating a new image.

I'll report back my findings when i have completed this. Will probably be on Wednesday.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 5th, 2007 at 3:34pm
Adenewton, concerning “guess I'll be upgrading Ghost” (Reply #36), please see Reply #23 for information about Ghost 11 (Ghost Solution Suite).

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 5th, 2007 at 3:47pm
Adenewton, you may also be interested in this thread:
    http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=598662&SiteID=17
Note the discussion of the “-fdsp” switch in Ghost 2003 for creating an image of a Windows Vista PC.

A list of all Ghost 2003 switches may be found at:
    http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ghost.nsf/pfdocs/1998082612540625

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Mar 5th, 2007 at 3:52pm
Both Ghost Solution Suite and Ghost Solution Suite 2.0 seem targeted to small/medium sized businesses, not individual home consumer.

Ghost Solution Suite 2.0 has a management console and requires a minimum of 10 licenses ($39.20 x 10 = $392).  Not sure if a management server license is on top of that.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Mar 5th, 2007 at 4:03pm
Ghost Solution Suite 2.0 Getting Started Guide.



Quote:
How Symantec Ghost works

Symantec Ghost uses the cloning functionality in Ghost.exe that creates an image file that contains all of the information that is required to recreate a complete disk or partition. Image files store and compress images of model system configurations (computers with all of the necessary software installed and configured), or create backup copies of complete drives or partitions. The image file can be restored to one or more partitions or disks, replacing existing data.

GhostCasting extends this functionality to cloning multiple computers simultaneously across a network, thereby rolling out a standard image file to a group of computers.

Leveraging the cloning and GhostCasting functions, Symantec Ghost lets you manage computers from a central Console. Once the Symantec Ghost client software is installed on the client computers, you can execute operations from the central Console without revisiting the clients.

Figure 2-1 describes the relationship between the Symantec Ghost console, the GhostCast Server, and Ghost.exe.


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 5th, 2007 at 6:02pm
Ghost4me, note that the Ghost Solution Suite 2.0 can be purchased in packs of 5 licenses at $39.20 each.  My understanding is that such a license would include Ghost 11 - i.e., the Windows Vista compatible version of Ghost 2003; however, I have not purchased this and so and I cannot be certain.

See:  http://shop.symantecstore.com/servlet/ControllerServlet?Action=DisplayPage&Env=BASE&Locale=en_US&SiteID=symnasmb&id=ProductDetailsSmbPage&productID=58628000

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Brian on Mar 5th, 2007 at 6:11pm

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 5th, 2007 at 6:02pm:
Ghost4me, note that the Ghost Solution Suite 2.0 can be purchased in packs of 5 licenses at $39.20 each.  

Pleonasm, that's interesting as this page says a minimum of 10. Take your pick.

http://www.symantecstore.com/dr/sat4/ec_Main.Entry17C?SID=49999&SP=10023&CID=0&PID=879361&PN=1&V1=879361&V2=&V3=&V4=&V5=11033757&CUR=840&DSP=&PGRP=0&ABCODE=&CACHE_ID=0

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by ben_mott on Mar 6th, 2007 at 1:12am
@AdeNewton
just for a matter of interest see if that none bootable vista
partition boots with this windows XP boot disk
http://www.postbox.wanadoo.co.uk/xpboot.exe
down load it to desk top and then double click on it to make a
bootable XP floppy disk.
boot with that floppy and choose the partition on which none bootable Vista  is residing.
if you be kind enough to post your finding be grateful
also this
Vista Boot Floppy
http://www.multibooters.co.uk/floppy.html

Regards Ben

:)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Fonk on Mar 6th, 2007 at 9:04am
Is gost sollution 2.0 having the 'old' Ghost.exe 8.2 / 8.3 ?

So what i learned is it has something to do with the MBR ?

I tested Vista RTM on C:\ 15 GB.

Backed up to D:\ Vista.gho

I have tested XP / 2003 on the same C:\ 15 GB

Backed up D:\Xp.gho (or) 2003.gho


Till now it did reset the systems correct.
But after reading this topic it might look ok but is is not ?

I have from a busines a long time ago a ghost version that says 8.3 in the dos version.

Symantec Ghost 8.3 Corp ( i think)
I did not use any switches yet, so no idea about that Track ID MBR problem.

But this maybe because i have installed Windows Xp first, than Ghosted, Than installed over that partition Vista RTM, ghosted to D:\ and reset Xp --> Vista and Vista back to Xp.

If this is wrong alltough i have no errors then i need to run checkdisk and see the logs.


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Fonk on Mar 6th, 2007 at 9:40am
I would like to Buy Ghost Version 11.

But i am confused.

Is the latest *real* ghost version ghost.exe 8.2 / 8.3 ?
Or is Ghost 11 an updated version  of the real ghost e.g. not DriveImage.

I used Symantec Ghost 8.3 Corporated from dos (I believe this is still the 'old'   *Real*  Ghost version.

No i have the option to but Version 11. Ghost 11.
Would like to know if this is a updated version of 8.3 or if it is worse and uses DriveImage.

The thing is, Version 11 tells me it uses Vista 100% by design.

A lot of users did not like 10.0 or 9.0 because it was not the real old ghost version ?

I hope version 11 is still the real ghost and not a DriveImage version as 9.0 and 10.0

Anyone can tell me it is oke to buy ? Or should i stay with Version 8.3 (exe)

I need 100% savety fopr my bussnis systems. And i still use dos for that from a special made CD by me.

So yeah, if Ghost 11 is worth the money i will buy only if it is saver or more updated and better then the old 2003 / Ghost Corp 8.2 or 8.3 (that i have now)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 6th, 2007 at 9:41am
Concerning the minimum number of licenses for Ghost Solution Suite 2.0 that must be purchased, you’ll see “5” if you enter the online Symantec Store via the “Small and Mid-Size Business Products” path or “10” if via the “Enterprise Products” path.

As noted in Reply #23, I did actually call Symantec Sales, and confirmed that 5 licenses is the minimum purchase (i.e., 5 x $39.20 = $196.00).  Although somewhat expensive, this might be a desirable option for anyone who really prefers to use a DOS-based imaging solution for a Windows Vista PC.

Personally, I am not interested in using Ghost 11 (Ghost Solution Suite 2.0), since I don’t perceive that it has any advantages (and does have some disadvantages) as compared to Norton Ghost 10 (soon-to-be ‘Norton Ghost 12’).  It is intellectually interesting, though, to explore the compatibility issues in order to gain a better understanding of the ‘why’ behind the operations of a software product.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by El_Pescador on Mar 6th, 2007 at 10:35am

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 6th, 2007 at 9:41am:
"... Although somewhat expensive, this (Ghost Solution Suite 2.0) might be a desirable option for anyone who really prefers to use a DOS-based imaging solution for a Windows Vista PC..."

Now, I am thoroughly confused.  Norton Ghost Ver 8.2 runs in a Windows XP Preinstalled Environment while apparently emulating Norton Ghost 2003 as the latter appears in DOS.  The obvious necessity for Ghost Ver 8.2 to boot up with - and then operate from - a drive with removable media is to allow generation of a "whole-disk cold-image", and an image which is compatible and interchangeable with Ghost 2003.

So, is Ghost Solution Suite 2.0 a "cold-imaging" product and does it actually function in: (1) a classic DOS environment; (2) a Windows Preinstalled Environment on removable media; (3) a Windows Environment on a HDD not "organic" to the system at issue; or (4) a manner not described above?

EP :'(

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 6th, 2007 at 12:32pm
El_Pescador, as I interpret the Ghost Solution Suite 2.0 documentation, the product includes both a DOS (“Ghost.exe”) as well as a Windows (“Ghost32.exe”) version of Ghost 11.  In the Symantec Ghost Implementation Guide, for example, you’ll find both versions discussed.  Note that the screen images for Ghost 11 in that document are highly similar to those found in Ghost 2003.  As a consequence, it is my inference that a GSS 2.0 license would provide the user with the ability to run Ghost 11 in either DOS or Windows (Vista or PE) in a manner quite consistent with Ghost 2003 in DOS or Ghost 8.2 in Windows PE.

I must admit, though, that my comments are based upon my reading of the documentation rather than actual experience.  Hopefully, a more knowledgeable individual will confirm or correct these observations.

Please take a look at the Symantec Ghost Implementation Guide, and let me know if your interpretation is the same or different.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by El_Pescador on Mar 6th, 2007 at 1:22pm

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 6th, 2007 at 12:32pm:
"... take a look at the Symantec Ghost Implementation Guide, and let me know if your interpretation is the same or different..."

My interpretation is the same for all practical purposes.  Although much of the content in the Guide is way outside my purview and comprehension, I was nonetheless fascinated enough by references to migrating from PC to PC via Ghost that I am good for a 1/5 share if four or more forum members share my curiosity based on the requisite minimum purchase (i.e., 5 x $39.20 = $196.00).

EP :'(

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by ben_mott on Mar 6th, 2007 at 1:56pm
when you get your windows vista DVD try
their way(MS) of imaging with imagex .exe and VistaPE with imagex.exe on the CD
http://www.boxpost.orangehome.co.uk/vistaimaging.htm
I still have not got Vista to play round with as it is too expensive.
but made a VISTA PE 2 from WIAK download 600 Mb
but was worth it as it is very informative and includes SIM
(system Image Manager)
Regards Ben
:)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Rama on Mar 6th, 2007 at 3:29pm

El_Pescador wrote on Mar 6th, 2007 at 1:22pm:
My interpretation is the same for all practical purposes.  Although much of the content in the Guide is way outside my purview and comprehension, I was nonetheless fascinated enough by references to migrating from PC to PC via Ghost that I am good for a 1/5 share if four or more forum members share my curiosity based on the requisite minimum purchase (i.e., 5 x $39.20 = $196.00).

EP :'(



Add my name. I too am interested to try it. Can't pass the good deal.

R

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by El_Pescador on Mar 6th, 2007 at 4:04pm

El_Pescador wrote on Mar 6th, 2007 at 1:22pm:
"... I am good for a 1/5 share if four or more forum members share my curiosity based on the requisite minimum purchase (i.e., 5 x $39.20 = $196.00)..."

Well, counting myself we already have three forum members onboard at this moment :o

In an attempt to exercise due diligence, I discovered the image below at
http://admin.digitalriver.com/v2.0-img/page-builder/Symantec/images/11280730_SGSSV2_fs.pdf
.



Despite the statement highlighted above, I am not altogether sure one way or the other that Windows XP Home Edition is in fact supported for our purposes.  I suppose that we will just have to call in an expert to resolve that matter.  Regardless, the more I read, the more excited I become to get my hands on the Enterprise product entitled 'Symantec GhostTM Solution Suite Version 2.0'.

EP
:'(

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 6th, 2007 at 4:06pm
El_Pescador, you would need to check with Symantec Sales to be sure, but based upon the end-user license agreement employed for its consumer products, I doubt that Symantec would allow you to sublicense a Ghost Solution Suite purchase and thereby divide and distribute the 5-pack of licenses to 5 users.

Before going further, you may wish to download and test the free ‘trialware’ version of Ghost Solution Suite 2.0 to see if it meets your objectives.

P.S.:  I noticed that the Symantec website no longer lists Ghost Solution Suite as a product under the Enterprise Products category, but only under the Small and Mid-Size Business Products category.  What's up?  Am I missing something?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Rama on Mar 6th, 2007 at 4:16pm

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 6th, 2007 at 4:06pm:
El_Pescador, you would need to check with Symantec Sales to be sure, but based upon the end-user license agreement employed for its consumer products, I doubt that Symantec would allow you to sublicense a Ghost Solution Suite purchase and thereby divide and distribute the 5-pack of licenses to 5 users.

Before going further, you may wish to download and test the free ‘trialware’ version of Ghost Solution Suite 2.0 to see if it meets your objectives.

P.S.:  I noticed that the Symantec website no longer lists Ghost Solution Suite as a product under the Enterprise Products category, but only under the Small and Mid-Size Business Products category.  What's up?  Am I missing something?


If we go ahead with the project, it can be treated as a joint venture, so all would own the license so sub-licensing issue would not arise :D

Note: I believe there may be severe limitations on the trialware and this has to be looked at.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 6th, 2007 at 5:41pm
You are creative, Rama – but I still seriously doubt that Symantec will acquiesce to the approach.

Think about it from their perspective.  If you buy licenses in bulk and then 'redistribute' them, you have appointed yourself as a reseller – and have bypassed Symantec's authorization for becoming a reseller.  I am incredulous that such an approach would be tolerated.

But, my opinion (or yours) doesn't really matter:  Symantec has the final say on the issue, so it would be wise and appropriate to ask the question before proceeding.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Rama on Mar 6th, 2007 at 6:38pm
Pleonasm:

It is not my creative idea! Every business man/woman knows about it.

Joint ventures, which are more like partnerships, are formed routinely for a specific project and they are recognized as a valid legal entity. If need be, an assumed business name can be formally recorded in any local county courthouse and the order will be placed in the name of the joint venture,  more so because the joint venture is not trying to be a reseller trying to make a buck. The five individuals forming the joint venture will own five legal licenses and are going to try the software in their environments.

I am not a lawyer, but routinely deal with complex tax matters and has seen joint ventures.

Rama  

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by El_Pescador on Mar 6th, 2007 at 8:13pm

Rama wrote on Mar 6th, 2007 at 6:38pm:
"... If need be, an assumed business name can be formally recorded in any local county courthouse and the order will be placed in the name of the joint venture..."

Actually, until my residence was devastated by Hurricane Katrina I operated a solely-owned Subchapter S corporation - recognized by the IRS who issued me my own EIN - that was chartered by the Louisiana Secretary of State and licensed by the Parish (County in the rest of the USA).  Since all assets and records of my consultancy - plus my personal technical library - were lost in the floodwaters, that chapter of my continuing career as a marine biologist was closed with stark finality and I reluctantly chose to retire for the second - and probably final - time.  Perhaps like the mythological Phoenix, I should emerge from my murky and sordid surroundings to re-establish my enterprise and thus validate the purchase of a minimum number of licenses for 'Symantec GhostTM Solution Suite Version 2.0'...LOL ::)

EP
:'(

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Mar 6th, 2007 at 8:31pm
I hope all of you have better luck in purchasing Symantec Solution Suite 2.0 than I did:

From reading the website, I believe that you need to purchase the server software as well as the $39.20 client software.  My goal was simple--find out if that was true, and if true, how much the server software costs.  It is hard for me to believe that the server software is free (for the cost of 5x$39).  After all the manual is 700+ pages long.  No one gives away software with a 700 page manual for $39!

OK, so I called the small business number for Symantec, listed on their website.  After 3 calls, punch-this-for-that dept., numerous transfers, 2 disconnects, and re-dials (which got me someone's voice mailbox), I was told that Symantec doesn't sell it, and can't answer my simple question.  It is only sold by an authorized Reseller.

Now more phone calls, transfers, music-on-hold, etc. etc. to a "reseller".  Then I was told they were having "problems" transferring me and try and call back tomorrow.

You guys try it for yourself, if you want some self-punishment.  I give up!   >:(

After spending 50 minutes in phone-hell, I don't think they really want my business.

I hope their technical support is better than their sales support, (but not holding my breath).

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by El_Pescador on Mar 6th, 2007 at 10:49pm

John. wrote on Mar 6th, 2007 at 8:31pm:
"... It is only sold by an authorized Reseller..."

CLICK HERE to purchase the OLP licenses only ::)  An OLP license - or 'open license' - is an electronic software license registered to a specific end user.  This type of license is delivered electronically via eMail.

CLICK HERE to purchase the 'media kit' only :o  I gather that the 'media kit' is analogous to the installation CD that comes in a boxed retail copy of a Symantec Consumer product.  If the five users were under a single roof, then one would need to purchase five OLP licenses and one media kit.

EP :'(

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Mar 7th, 2007 at 4:17am
[quote author=El_Pescador  link=1170184062/60#61 date=1173242992]
CLICK HERE to purchase the OLP licenses   An OLP license - or 'open license' - is an electronic software license registered to a specific end user.  This type of license is delivered electronically via eMail.[/quote]
I found a wealth of information and an active GSS 2.0 support forum here:

https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board?board.id=109


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by adenewton on Mar 7th, 2007 at 2:06pm

Brian wrote on Mar 5th, 2007 at 3:04pm:
This is about cloning and multi-booting but there was discussion about those edits in the BootIt forum at one stage. They said make the edits before imaging. I don't know if it's relevant for you but if you have time, would you like to try? I may be on the wrong track.

http://www.multibooters.co.uk/cloning.html


Forget Ghost Solution Suite 2 guys, because this worked.

If your ghosting a vista image to a disk that has already had vista running on it, then you can use Ghost 2003 DOS version as normal.

If however your moving ghost to another hard drive, do the following from the command line (make sure you right click the command prompt icon and choose 'run as administrator')

and run these commands one after the other:

bcdedit /set {bootmgr} device boot
bcdedit /set {default} device boot
bcdedit /set {default} osdevice boot

I just successfully copied my Vista image from one hard drive to a completly blank drive without partitions etc and then successfully booted from it.

 ;D

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Rama on Mar 7th, 2007 at 3:18pm
From what I see on symantec website, the suite is designed for a network with a number of computers and of course ghost32.exe is included in it so that it can be run from BartPE or WinPE. I hope  ghost32.exe latest version has some enhancements to address issues relating to Vista.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Fonk on Mar 8th, 2007 at 9:06am

adenewton wrote on Mar 7th, 2007 at 2:06pm:
Forget Ghost Solution Suite 2 guys, because this worked.

If your ghosting a vista image to a disk that has already had vista running on it, then you can use Ghost 2003 DOS version as normal.

If however your moving ghost to another hard drive, do the following from the command line (make sure you right click the command prompt icon and choose 'run as administrator')

and run these commands one after the other:

bcdedit /set {bootmgr} device boot
bcdedit /set {default} device boot
bcdedit /set {default} osdevice boot

I just successfully copied my Vista image from one hard drive to a completly blank drive without partitions etc and then successfully booted from it.

 ;D


And what if you had XP on the same drive and partition aswell?

Is the MBR correct updated one way or the other way around.

So having first installed ever XP, then ghost that version, than format, then install on the same partition Vista.

Image with a version of ghost, format the partition and reset from dos?

This works??

I think moste users have had XP on there partitions and overwrite it (format) the same to have there Vista.

A totally new unused harddisk might have problems if i understand you correct.

This means MBR is not deleted after a format?

Sorry i am a bit confused

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 8th, 2007 at 12:13pm
For more information on the “bcdedit procedure” described in Reply #63, see this link that was posted in Reply #4.

Question:  What precisely are these bcdedit commands doing – and why are they necessary when using Ghost 2003 in conjunction with Windows Vista?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by NightOwl on Mar 8th, 2007 at 1:07pm
Pleonasm

Google Search:  *bcdedit.exe*--Boot Configuration Data Editor

Boot Configuration Data Editor Frequently Asked Questions


Quote:
What is the BCD store?

The Boot Configuration Data (BCD) store contains boot configuration parameters and controls how the operating system is started in Microsoft® Windows Vista™ and Microsoft® Windows Server® Code Name "Longhorn" operating systems. These parameters were previously in the Boot.ini file (in BIOS-based operating systems) or in the nonvolatile RAM (NVRAM) entries (in Extensible Firmware Interface–based operating systems).



Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 8th, 2007 at 3:16pm
NightOwl, we think alike.  I actually did search for information on BCDEdit prior to posting Reply #66, but was unsuccessful in finding anything on the web that explained (at least to me) what the series of three commands listed in Reply #63 was actually accomplishing.  Stated differently, what is the specific “problem” that these commands are “fixing”?

Do these edits to the BCD have any unintended consequences to the running of the Windows Vista PC?

Does a user need to “undo” the BCD edits after the image backup is created by Ghost 2003?  Why or why not?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by nbree on Mar 9th, 2007 at 6:34am

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 8th, 2007 at 3:16pm:
Stated differently, what is the specific “problem” that these commands are “fixing”?

By default, the BCD data doesn't use the BOOT.INI paths which refer to disk locations by drive and partition number. Instead, it refers to them the same way as HKLM\System\MountedDevices does, by disk signature and the byte offset into the disk.

Windows XP used to get really upset if you moved the boot partition because it believed the registry rather than the partition table. However, if you cleared the disk signature it would fall back to some sane code that re-read the partition table. The BCD system is similar in that it REALLY wants to believe its idea of the disk identity and partition table rather than the MBR and partition table. If things don't line up, it just throws its toys out of the cot and bluescreens.


Quote:
Do these edits to the BCD have any unintended consequences to the running of the Windows Vista PC?

As I understand it, all you're doing is telling it not to be so bloody stupid and to read the partition table rather than relying on the byte location of the boot volume.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by NightOwl on Mar 9th, 2007 at 9:00am
Pleonasm

This may be informative:

Vista and Symantec Ghost 8.x


Quote:
An update on where things currently stand.

Indeed this appears to be a condition specific to the new BCD-based boot manager.  i.e. It's the boot manager failing to find and execute the Windows boot files under circumstances where Windows itself can otherwise successfully boot, and not a change to the boot configuration/dependencies of Windows itself.

(Windows of course also keeps partition and disk information of its own, even prior to Vista.  But in my experience this never resulted in a boot issue for the situation described, and Windows automatically updated and corrected if a different partition / disk signature was used.)

The cause of the Vista load failure previously described, to the degree I understand it, is that by default all of the BCD entries use "PARTITION"-type device references where applicable.  In the BCD data stored for these "PARTITION"-type device references (visible in the BCD section of the registry, and in a BCDEDIT /EXPORT), both the drive signature and the partition number appear to be part of the information stored.  And based on the results, both must match the current environment else the boot manager will declare the OS loading application cannot be found.

(Even if I force the drive signature to be the correct signature, if I'm restoring to a different partition than the image was previously using, the restored partition will still fail to boot because the partition number stored in the BCD still doesn't match the current environment.)

The solution that appears to be most suitable (at least for the situation I previously described and was intending to solve) is to change the BCD entries to use "BOOT" device references rather than explicit "PARTITION"-based references.  Presumably thereby implying "whatever device/partition I booted from, that is the device/partition I want to use".

Preparing a Vista installation prior to creating the Ghost image then becomes a task of setting the DEVICE and OSDEVICE entries of the BCD entries you intend to use:

Logon as Administrator and from a command prompt invoke the following changes:
BCDEDIT /set {bootmgr} device boot
BCDEDIT /set {default} device boot
BCDEDIT /set {default} osdevice boot

Note you can "fix" a previously restored (and currently failing to boot) installation using a PE boot disc and executing these same actions against the restored partition's BCD entries.

There may be more entries that you need to fix if you intend to use them ({memtest}, {legacy}, etc.).  The above is just the minimum for my own scenario where there is just a clean Vista-only OS installation on the partition.

Once the BCD entries are no longer referring to specific disk signatures and partition numbers, there is no need to use -FDSP with Ghost anymore, either.  The disk signature can be reset as it is by default with a Ghost disk restore, and "nothing special" is required during image creation or restore (from a Ghost perspective).

Presumably this could have also been corrected by resetting/updating the "PARTITION"-type device entries with current information (current partition number and disk signature) post-Ghost restore, if for any reason the use of "PARTITION"-type references is needed.  For the purposes of making an image that can be restored via Ghost to any partition on my test box, the "BOOT" device reference appears most desirable by not being fixed to any one partition or disk signature.

Happy booting.

-Alan


I'm betting that the new *BCD-based boot manager* in Vista is in preparation for the upcoming hardware based security measures that have previously been mentioned that are coming.

It sounds like the edits above make the Vista Boot Mgr *act* more like the old *boot.ini*--for now that's probably okay because there are probably few, if any, hardware systems that have implemented the hardware locked security measures as yet.

We'll have to see if the Boot Mgr edits *breaks* or effects the hardware security once it starts coming online with new systems.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 9th, 2007 at 1:05pm
Nbree and NightOwl, your posts (Reply #69 and #70) are extremely informative, and I am confident that the entire Ghost 2003 community will find them to be of benefit.

NightOwl, your warning about potential problems through the BCDEdit procedure with forthcoming hardware-based security measures (e.g., Trusted Platform Module) is interesting.  Microsoft must have had a reason for the approach they adopted, and circumventing their “standard” could prove to be a source of difficulty in the future.

Additionally, for those who prefer a DOS-based approach to backup images, note that TeraByte Unlimited replied to an inquiry I initiated and confirmed that its “Image for DOS” product is compatible with Windows Vista.  I personally have not used this tool, and thus cannot comment on its operation.

Readers of this thread may also wish to look at Norton Ghost 12 (which will be Windows Vista compatible, when released in late April, 2007).

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by nbree on Mar 10th, 2007 at 2:52am

John. wrote on Mar 6th, 2007 at 8:31pm:
From reading the website, I believe that you need to purchase the server software as well as the $39.20 client software. [...] It is hard for me to believe that the server software is free (for the cost of 5x$39).

Just to be absolutely clear, there is no separately purchased server software, and if there's something on the Symantec website implying that then it'd good to know where it is so we could correct it; the client licenses (which you can buy through the Symantec online store just fine without a reseller) really is all there is. Installing the server is just something you do in order to make use of the client licenses.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Brian on Mar 10th, 2007 at 4:03am

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 9th, 2007 at 1:05pm:
Additionally, for those who prefer a DOS-based approach to backup images, note that TeraByte Unlimited replied to an inquiry I initiated and confirmed that its “Image for DOS” product is compatible with Windows Vista.

The other TeraBytes products, Image for Windows, Image for Linux and BootIt NG are also "Finalized for Vista". BootIt NG has a "BCD Editor".

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/kb/article.php?id=318

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2/11 and   Vista
Post by Rama on Mar 12th, 2007 at 2:56pm
I recently had a chance to make a cursory review of  Symantec Solution Suite 2.0 which is claimed to be compatible with Vista. The heart of the program still are enterprise versions of GHOST32.EXE (Windows) and GHOST.EXE (DOS). The latest versions are called 11.0. From the user interface it looks like there may be some minor program enhancements which are not obvious to the user. Long time Ghost end users may like to use the new version imbedded into WinPE or BartPE to image and restore Vista drives.  I will not be surprised if the next version of Norton Ghost as well as Save and Restore which will work with Vista may contain the above programs as part of the bootable restore CD.  

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 13th, 2007 at 10:17am
Rama, users of the beta version of Norton Ghost 12 have reported that the product does not contain a mechanism (e.g., Ghost 8.2 or Ghost 2003) to create/restore .GHO images.  We’ll need to wait and see whether or not this capability is also absent from the final production release, but its exclusion from the beta version suggests that it won’t be present in the finalized product.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2/11 and Windows Vista
Post by Rama on Mar 13th, 2007 at 12:22pm
Pleo, thanks for the info. The fact that Ghost32 and Ghost (DOS) continue to be inside the Enterprise version GSS 2.0 is good news, as these versions are not going to be abandoned even though not bundled inside consumer versions of Ghost.

I only hope Symantec sells these two programs along with Ghost Explorer for user like those who are on this forum as well as technicians who provide support to business and consumer computer users.

By the way, one issue I noticed is how the virtual disks in Vista are going to be imaged by Ghost for retrieval purposes?


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/GSS2.0 and Windows Vista
Post by Rama on Mar 14th, 2007 at 7:14pm

El_Pescador wrote on Mar 6th, 2007 at 10:49pm:
CLICK HERE to purchase the OLP licenses only ::)  An OLP license - or 'open license' - is an electronic software license registered to a specific end user.  This type of license is delivered electronically via eMail.

CLICK HERE to purchase the 'media kit' only :o  I gather that the 'media kit' is analogous to the installation CD that comes in a boxed retail copy of a Symantec Consumer product.  If the five users were under a single roof, then one would need to purchase five OLP licenses and one media kit.

EP :'(



Here is an interesting clarification on the licenses I found on the Symantec Ghost Enterprise forum.


That said, having been around Ghost since before Symantec owned it, Ghost has always been licensed on the basis of client computers, never on the basis of servers. Although the console has been part of "Ghost" the product since version 6.0, Ghost has always been licensed on the basis of client machines, and at least part of that is because a good many of the customers who purchase the product never actually used the console part, just the classic Ghost.exe and GhostSrv.exe.

[ In fact, the percentage of customers who used the console versus those who bought licenses just to run Ghost.exe/GhostSrv.exe to image machines by hand was always a subject of some debate here at Ghost HQ. ]

The end result of having the product be licensed around Ghost.exe rather than around the console is that as long as you have a license covering a client, you're set. The console's enforcement of license limits isn't oriented around multiple installations, but our intention was that customers should be able to install multiple servers if the shape of their network demands it.

As long as the total number of clients in your company is under the number of licenses you have purchased, then you're fine.

[ If you could actually buy servers separately from clients it might be a different matter, but since at present you can't buy servers, only clients, it's hard to imagine any other interpretation.]



It looks to me that five of us can form a joint venture and purchase five clients, and each client installed on individual machines. Each one will have a legit copy to work with. If you ask the sales people who are not used to deal with this kind of  complex arrangement, we will get conflicting or "No" answers.


Rama :D

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/GSS2.0 and Windows Vista
Post by nbree on Mar 15th, 2007 at 8:18pm

Rama wrote on Mar 14th, 2007 at 7:14pm:
Here is an interesting clarification on the licenses I found on the Symantec Ghost Enterprise forum.

What follows are personal observations only.

Having been dragged into this somewhat by having my text quoted above, let me point out that I wasn't speaking to the legalities of the EULA there, nor specifically to the situation you have in mind.

Now, something we here at Ghost HQ do know is that GSS is sometimes purchased by consultants who divide the GSS licenses they purchase amongst their customers.

Whether it's within the terms of the EULA in various countries, I don't know. It certainly isn't strictly within the intent of the approach we took to license enforcement, but that's because we simply didn't consider that situation. Nonetheless, it has happened, and since we want to treat all customers well we don't use it as an excuse to deny support (given that we're not paid to actually give any on our forums anyway, it's something we do unpaid out of a moral sense of responsibility).

Something to consider is that a substantial fraction of the difference in pricing philosophy between corporate and consumer products is about support. The cost of support isn't really visible in boxed consumer products, but support costs are visible in the corporate world by first being partly unbundled, and partly in the hefty price breaks that corporate customers receive for large purchases of licenses.

Commercial consultancy-type or outsourcing-type situations don't, as a rule, upset that. They certainly have a large potential to in other ways, in terms of what happens when outsourcing relationships are terminated. But by and large, the consultant/outsourcing situations we've encountered don't destabilise the pricing/support equation - such third-party intermediaries are often very highly skilled, after all, and so their end customers and the vendor can end up benefiting from the arrangement.

Ultimately, what matters in business (and, it has to be said, in life) is having relationships that work for all the parties. It may not always be possible to put those relationships into ideal legal frameworks; those frameworks largely only exist to deal with the situation when the relationships no longer work, not to describe working relationships.

Also remember the distinctions between price, and value, and cost. Leaving aside the way that price influences the perception of value, a good working commercial relationship is one where the excess benefit - the difference between the value received and the cost of production - is shared.

Just bear these ideas in mind. GSS2 is priced as a corporate product, so an arrangement which makes Symantec bear consumer-level support costs (i.e., the company loses money and developers lose their jobs) is not a good idea.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by El_Pescador on Mar 15th, 2007 at 10:46pm

wrote on Mar 15th, 2007 at 8:18pm:
"... Just bear these ideas in mind. GSS2 is priced as a corporate product, so an arrangement which makes Symantec bear consumer-level support costs (i.e., the company loses money and developers lose their jobs) is not a good idea..."

To offset the downside of your closing comments, here is a kinky idea to kick about with your mates at work in days to come:  The Southwest Pacific once was - and perhaps still is - the site for native Melanesian 'Cargo Cults' who have mystical notions about Uncle Sam returning in the sweet bye and bye to once again rain down largesse from the skies.

Sooo, consider the evidence that you chaps involved with the Enterprise aspect of Ghost perhaps in turn have a modest - and albeit farflung - 'Cargo Cult' counterpart of your very own.  I daresay they appear to be a very enterprising cult at that.  Dudes who go so far as to strip installation CDs of the boxed retail version of Norton Ghost 10 to render the essential legacy Norton Ghost Version 8.2 elements - restoreghost.exe which they knowingly rename ghost32.exe in addition to ghostexp.exe.  They have even gone so far as to incorporate these essential components of the "cold-imaging" Ghost Ver 8.2 into rather elegant bootable Reatogo-X-PE CDs running in the Windows XP Preinstalled Environment as depicted below, and which from at least one perspective are able to emulate Symantec Ghost Solution Suite 1.0 itself.

Please understand that they not only yearn for the absent ghostcdr.exe and ghostsrv.exe, but that they also fervently desire to gain the very latest issues of ghost32.exe and ghostexp.exe.




EP :'(

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/GSS2.0 and Windows Vista
Post by Rama on Mar 16th, 2007 at 12:23am

wrote on Mar 15th, 2007 at 8:18pm:
What follows are personal observations only.

Having been dragged into this somewhat by having my text quoted above, let me point out that I wasn't speaking to the legalities of the EULA there, nor specifically to the situation you have in mind.

Now, something we here at Ghost HQ do know is that GSS is sometimes purchased by consultants who divide the GSS licenses they purchase amongst their customers.

Just bear these ideas in mind. GSS2 is priced as a corporate product, so an arrangement which makes Symantec bear consumer-level support costs (i.e., the company loses money and developers lose their jobs) is not a good idea.



Glad to see your post. Many members here are seasoned computer users, some of whom will match the skills of any developer in the world. Most members here are experienced users who rarely need much of any vendor support on their products, unlike traditional end user. The intent of most users in this board is to purchase and possess legit copies of all software they a need for their use.  They do understand that such user support to vendors is needed for the software companies to be in business and bring out updated and improved products to the market, which in turn benefits both the vendor and the user. In addition, vendors should recognize there are several levels of end users -- from novices to software/hardware Gurus.

Having said that, when a piece of software has been developed and there is a segment of users are able and willing to buy them at a competitive price (so that they possess and use a legal copy), it is to the vendor's and user's benefit to make the product available for sale at a reasonable price.  In the market such as the members we are discussing here do not require any expensive marketing or expensive and attractive packaging normally needed for traditional end users who buy from retail and mail order outlets. This segment will find out about the products very quickly and easily and vendors realize significant amount of cost savings from marketing and merchandising expenses, thus help their bottom line and keep the developers employed and keep improving the products and bring new innovative products. It is a win-win situation all around, only if the vendors pay attention to this market.

When vendors make it difficult, very expensive  or impossible for the users to purchase a product which they really need to help them in their application, innovative user will always find a way to get hold of the product, in any way they can. The users should not be put into such a situation, because it does no good to the vendor and perhaps result in lost revenue, with the potential loss of developer jobs.

I think we are in such a situation regarding GSS. For many users on this forum, just the ability to purchase individual clients (not in multiples of 5 or more) at a reasonable and affordable price by download would meet their needs. So my suggestion to you is to pass on this msg up the corporate marketing ladder so that we can all have a happy resolution to the current situation.  


Rama
:)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by nbree on Mar 16th, 2007 at 4:05am

El_Pescador wrote on Mar 15th, 2007 at 10:46pm:
I daresay they appear to be a very enterprising cult at that.

Heh. I have the highest regards for you all. You guys rock.  If you gentlemen were to form a consortium, you'd have the ability to look after yourselves, and that would be fine; just understand that it wouldn't be fine on a larger scale, OK?

As to selling classic Ghost more widely, you're talking to the wrong guy. We who make the product are passionate about it, and believe in it - but decisions about what to sell are made by VPs, not by technical people.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Rama on Mar 16th, 2007 at 8:18am

wrote on Mar 16th, 2007 at 4:05am:
As to selling classic Ghost more widely, you're talking to the wrong guy. We who make the product are passionate about it, and believe in it - but decisions about what to sell are made by VPs, not by technical people.


Like you, we are all passionate about good software, that is why we want to own legit copies not bootlegged ones!, thus support software companies and in turn developers.

We all understand how marketing decisions are made in large corporations; many here have worked/working for them. Hopefully someone who has the ear of these VPs points to them one more opportunity to expand the market, by making the software easily accessible to those who want it and have the technical ability to use them. It would be a win-win situation all around.

Do you think posting some of the marketing issue related msgs on the symantec forum may help?


Rama

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 21st, 2007 at 10:51am
Although I too would prefer that Symantec make available the sale of individual Ghost 11/Ghost Solution 2.0 licenses (because consumer choice is good), I can easily see why it is not in the best interests of the company to do so.

Despite the fact that many who visit this forum would not require support from Symantec for the use of Ghost 11/GSS 2.0, that set of individuals is clearly not representative of the larger PC population.  If Ghost 11/GSS 2.0 were to circulate among general PC users, then Symantec would need to train and equip their consumer support personnel to handle the load, which could be quite significant and which could quickly erode the entire profit margin.  (Remember:  the Ghost 11/GSS 2.0 manual is in excess of 700 pages!)

Additionally, each individual sale of Ghost 11/GSS 2.0 'cannibalizes' a sale of Norton Ghost 12, which is likely at a higher price point and therefore contributes more profit margin.

Perhaps more fundamentally, though, the entire category of image backup tools is entering a commoditization stage of its lifecycle, in which differences between tools are becoming minimized, in my opinion.  For an individual PC user in particular, it is difficult to make a logical argument for needing Ghost 11/GSS 2.0 when so many excellent competitive products exist that perform the same work.  Yes, I understand that individuals have emotional preferences, and I know that in some very limited situations there may exist some unique feature that dictates the use of one tool over another, but in general the class of image backup tools is evolving toward functional equivalency.

Should an individual PC user care whether or not Ghost 11/GSS 2.0 is available as separate license purchase?  I think not, simply because the task of creating/restoring a backup image can be done so well by any number of other tool options.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Rama on Mar 21st, 2007 at 11:37am

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 21st, 2007 at 10:51am:
Although I too would prefer that Symantec make available the sale of individual Ghost 11/Ghost Solution 2.0 licenses (because consumer choice is good), I can easily see why it is not in the best interests of the company to do so.


I still am a believer of a simple excellennt backup program at a very competitive price even with marginal free support will in the long run draw quite a following in todays world with every home, at least in the developed countries having more than one computer. I still recall the experience of Intuit's introduction of Quicken at a low price with no support ended up being a block buster. Due to the low price, there was no incentive to pirate copies and of course later on the company branched into other applications such as Quickbooks, Payroll, Turbotax. I am still optimistic that Symantec would consider selling single licenses of   "enterprise" version for consumers.

Rama


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Mar 21st, 2007 at 12:22pm
Rama, I hope your prediction comes to pass.  Yet, I am quite pessimistic that the posts of a few PC users will persuade Symantec, for the reasons articulated in Reply #83.

From a business perspective, the key questions are:  How large is this market niche?  What marketing and sales expenses are required to penetrate it?  What are the associated costs-to-serve?  Can all this be done profitably?  Is this option more attractive than other alternatives?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by JJF on Mar 26th, 2007 at 7:52am
I enjoy solving problems based on information found from web searches.  I only wish that I found this forum earlier.  

Currently, I have the following platform:
-      Dell Latitude D820
-      BartsPE with Norton Ghost 8.0 booting from a USB flash drive
-      Western Digital USB My Book which contains the following Ghost images:
      o      Drive image of only the Dell Diagnostics Partition and a blank formated Windows XP c drive
      o      Partition image of Windows XP
      o      Partition image of Windows Vista

The goal is to be able to easily save and restore either a Windows XP image or a Windows Vista image.  Ideally, I want three partitions on my C drive:  Dell Diagnostics, Operating System (either Windows XP or Windows Vista), Applications Data.

Typically, I have needed to delete the C drive partition, then format the C drive in order to successfully restore a Windows XP image.  Last night, I was able to repair my Windows Vista image when I restored it and got the file not found error, then was able to repair the Vista installation using the Vista installation discs.

There is a chance (possibly unrelated to the Vista and Ghost issues) that my earlier images were of a partition with index problems.  I saved new images this weekend.

Questions:
-      When or how often is it necessary to make the BCDEdit changes?  Currently, Windows Vista is restored to the hard drive.  
-      Where is the actual BCD data saved on the disk?

Path Forward to demonstrate the ability to restore either a Windows Vista partition image or a Windows XP partition image?

-      Make the BCDEdit changes as documented in previous replies.

-      Create a new Windows Vista partition image
-      Change the desktop, then create a 2nd Windows Vista partition image
-      Restore each Windows Vista partition image, keeping your fingers crossed

-      Restore Windows XP partition image (hopefully without having to format the c drive)

-      Restore Windows Vista partion image (hopefully without having to repair the installation)

Anyone have any other suggestions or ideas?  Thanks in advance for your help.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by DrWho2006 on Apr 22nd, 2007 at 1:53pm
This is a very long thread and I know I've missed a lot of it, but as far as running two OS'z ......wouldn't it just be easier on the user and the equipment to just use two HD's???

That's what I do on my new computer, on which I'm testing Vista Ultimate 64.
Both my Vista HD (NTFS) and my XP HD (FAT-32) are plugged into two SATA II ports on my MSI AM2 mobo.  All I have to do, to change disks is stop the bootup at the boot screen  and select drive #2 instead of drive #1.  No biggie!

And OH, by the way, both HD's backup easily from my ghost 2003, build 793 boot floppy disk.

Cheers Y'all!
Doc  8-)


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Apr 22nd, 2007 at 2:06pm
JJF, we all have our own preferences, but personally I would be inclined to choose an image backup program that is compatible with both Windows XP and Windows Vista and thereby avoid the convolutions.

You may also wish to explore the option of running Windows XP on a virtual machine inside of Windows Vista, now that Microsoft is providing Virtual PC 2007 for free.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by ben_mott on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 3:55pm
use Full Info :
now vista compatible ( 9th April 2007 ) a new version with Vista support.
http://home.eunet.no/pnordahl/ntpasswd/
to write the ISO use imgburne.exe it is easier than Nero
Regards Ben
PS
i can only log into this forum using IE 6 (microsoft) and not The latest Fire Fox !!
the log in and passwords are same.
I can not figure out what I am doing(done) wrong Regarding Fire Fox login memory cacheh ??
or where I can clear it and re enter the login and password again ???
regards Ben
:'(

Title: Need Instructions for Ghost 2003 Backup/Restore on Vista Ultimate - Please
Post by ghostuser on Jul 22nd, 2007 at 12:52pm
I just bought a new Toshiba A205 Satellite running Vista Ultimate preloaded.  I would very much appreciate learning the proper steps and commands/switches for doing a full disk image Vista backup and restore using only Ghost 2003 Build 793.  (Yes, I know Vista Ultimate has its own image backup util but I haven't tried it yet, and I've read it doesn't compress when backing up to hard drives -- just only when backing up to DVDs.)

Apologies for the verbosity, but I felt it helpful to describe my context and concerns.  (Pleonasm here might be proud -- ple • o • nasm n. “The use of more words than are required to express an idea”)  ;)

Just an FYI, I've been using Ghost since 1996, so I'm not a newbie.  Here's what I've got and what I've done so far:

- Ghost 2003, Build 793 on a DOS Boot CD (also installed on a Win2K machine for making the boot discs)

- There are two partitions on the Vista notebook's 200GB SATA HD:  1) 1.5GB "unknown" partition (is this the Vista restore points, etc. partition???), and 2) the remaining space is an NTFS partition.

- Backed up Vista full drive image to external USB 2.0 hard drive using a DOS Ghost 2003 boot CD with the following switches:
GHOST.EXE -split=690 -cns -auto -z9   (so I can burn off to CDs or DVDs at my choice later to make space for newer backups)

- The Ghost image verification check completes successfully.


I have not risked RESTORING the Ghost images yet, because of several big concerns:

1.  Lots of posts here talking about MBR differences with Vista, and I don't want to trash what I've got, mainly for reason #2:

2.  A Microsoft rep gave me a complimentary version of the full non-expiring Office 2007 Professional suite as part of their Office rollout (about $400-$500 retail).  I was told it had to be activated by June 30th, and just made it.  Since my Toshiba Vista disc is only a restore disc without Office 2007, I don't want to lose that product activation and all of my days of work customizing and tweaking Vista, not to mention all the many programs I've installed and tweaked since.

3.  When I just tried to install the Windows portion of Ghost 2003 off the original CD, Vista popped up a window stating that there is a known incompatibility with this version of the software.  It could not offer a resolution.  So I did not install it yet.

As for #3, I'm making an educated guess that it may be the way that Ghost 2003 Windows interface wrote to the MBR to create the virtual partition to boot directly to Ghost without using a boot CD.  (I never liked that much anyway, didn't work well with drive overlays, etc., so I'm not planning to use it -- I'm an old trusty DOS user!)

In conclusion, I would like to learn several things if anyone knows the answer to them:

1.  Can I install the full Ghost 2003 (Windows install) on Vista without screwing anything up?  Has anyone done this???

(If nothing else, I'd like to have Ghost Explorer installed to be able to do selective file restores.)

2.  What are the steps to properly back up and restore a full disk Vista image with Ghost 2003 (in DOS)?

I love this forum, thanks.

GhostUser

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by DrWho2006 on Sep 3rd, 2007 at 9:39am
I'm surprised that this thread has not generated a reply since July.

Ghost 2003, 793 will work on a Vista HD, but I think Ghost 8.3, 2005, build 1331 would be a better version for you.  It's size is such that it cannot be run from a bootable floppy, but then most people can't use a floppy any more anyway, unless its one of the external USB Floppies.  I have one of those and boy, do I ever find it useful !!!

I have ver 8.3 on a bootable CD and it works just great.  
You don't have to install the entire GUI into windows to have access to the Ghost Explorer.

In fact, installing the GUI in windows is totally Redundant as long as you have Ghost on a bootable media such as a CD, or flash drive.  I have it on a CD, a Flash Drive, and even a bootable SD memory card.  And, of course, I still have Ghost 2003 on a bootable floppy disk.
I guess you could say that my house is haunted......I have Ghosts all over the place.  ;) ;D ;D

Cheers Mate!
The Doctor  8-)




Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by justanotherday on Sep 18th, 2007 at 12:56am
I am on old ghost user myself. I hate the windows versions and have tried ver 12 and really don't like it. I believe a true snapshot of the OS should be taken while files being cloned are not it use.

I am using Vista on two machines now without floppy drives.

Can anyone tell me if I can use ghost 2003 to back up my new pc and laptop running vista with 2003? I have always used floppies. I couldn't boot from the original 2003 ghost disk so I assume I need to make a new bootable CD. Can anyone tell me how I'm going to do this with vista using ghost 2003.

Also has anyone restored images and can 100% tell me they will work?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by TheShadow on Sep 20th, 2007 at 7:34am
Just........

Boot into DOS from your Ghost 2003, 793, boot floppy and it should see your Vista NTFS partition the same as it would with any other version of windows.
EDIT:  I carry a USB Floppy Drive with me at all times, for those PC's that don't have a floppy drive installed.  It works just fine, to boot up a PC with my Ghost 2003, 793, boot floppy.

Using some program like Nero 6, that can convert a boot floppy to a boot CD will make you a CD to use, bypassing that NO FLOPPY problem with the newer computers.

As long as ghost can see your HD, when you run it, the Ghost Image should turn out just fine.

With so many different brands and models of PC's, and so many different Bios's in play, I have to couch every statement in "Woulda, Shoulda, Coulda".  ;) ;D ;D

One thing I can say for sure is "Try it!".  If it works, GREAT, if not, OH WELL ..... :(

I mis-spoke lately saying that Ghost 8.3 was abandoned software.  
I was reminded that "IT IS NOT".  
So don't expect to find it on any "Abandonware" sites.
Sorry for the mis-information. ::)

Shadow  8-)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by SamSysney on Sep 20th, 2007 at 10:36pm
Hi Guys

I have new Laptop ASUS-F3SV-AK136G - 200GBHDD - 2GB RAM and many plus plus blah..blah

I now want to create a GHOST image of my VISTA Ultimate.. (I do have a recovery disk and recovery image in a hidden partition but that does not give any option to increase number of partitions and I want to make atleast 4 partitions in my F3SV).

I used GHOST 2003 (Bootable DOS FLOPPY- Ghost.exe using usb floppy drive) and had no difficulties in creating an image of C:\ in partition2 i.e. D:\ successfully but do not want to try to restore it untill I am sure about it's success. I have read many forums and posts on the web that in fact confused me about it and even some one posted that he damaged the laptop (NOT F3SV) after using Ghost... not sure if that's logical and possible but I am a bit affraid to read that.

Wondering, if anyone of you has used Ghost to create your own images on F3SV and has any tips ? Please share your experiences and post maximum details to help all F3SV users.

There is another thing that I want to try i.e. to delete Partition2 D:\ and create 2 more partitions D:\ & E:\ in that space without disturbing the VistaOS C:\ Partition. If I do that, I feel ASUS recovery disk should still work since it has option to recover only First partition (that I havn't disturbed) and with the two new partitions I can then play around to try installing XP on it. Do you think this can damage the MBR or has done any damage to anyone ...

I have been using Ghost for 10 years but this time am not finding myself so confident due to Vista.... so please comment.

Thanks to all.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by TheShadow on Sep 22nd, 2007 at 4:41pm
Dummy me, I didn't know Asus made laptops.  
So much for being a small town boy!   ;D ;D ;D

If that were a desktop, I'd suggest using a spare HD for the trial restore,
until you're satisfied that your Ghost will do exactly what you need.

What I do and suggest for any Ghost backup user, is to do a "Check" of your image after doing the backup and before ever doing a Restore.  This will verify its integrity.
"Check" is right there in the Ghost menu.  It usually runs much faster than the backup did.

I always "Check" my Ghost backup Images because my next step is to do a Ghost Restore back to my HD, thus giving me a fabulous DEFRAG.  All files are re-written to the HD in perfect order, with NO spaces between files and NO fragmentation.

Good Luck with your project!
The Shadow  8-)




Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Sep 22nd, 2007 at 5:40pm

wrote on Sep 20th, 2007 at 10:36pm:
I have been using Ghost for 10 years but this time am not finding myself so confident due to Vista.... so please comment.


Ghost 12 and Norton Save and Restore 2.0 are the only consumer backup image products by Symantec that are certified for Vista.  (Some of the enterprise products are also certified for Vista).

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by TheShadow on Sep 23rd, 2007 at 12:00pm
Ok, I'm dumb....what does "Certified" do for you?

I'd have to guess that they don't want you using the older programs that may still work ,,,,, they want you to spend more money and get their latest and greatest.
That's a typical Symantec strategy. :P

Honest to GOD, I'm still using Ghost 2003 and Ghost 8.3 (2005) run from a DOS boot disk and I'm backing up every OS from DOS to Vista.

And I'm doing it from a simple little DOS boot disk (floppy, CD or flash drive).
Heck, I've even got Ghost 8.3 on a bootable SD flash memory card. ;)

Forgive me if I seem abrupt....but I just hate those big companies trying to take advantage of folk's ignorance.

Good Luck and Happy Ghosting!

The Shadow  8-)






Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by NightOwl on Sep 23rd, 2007 at 1:43pm
TheShadow


Quote:
Honest to GOD, I'm still using Ghost 2003 and Ghost 8.3 (2005) run from a DOS boot disk and I'm backing up every OS from DOS to Vista.

Okay--so have you restored those Vista backups?

What are you doing to adjust for the new Master Boot Region that is larger than the former MBR that Ghost 2003 is not *aware* of?  

Are you using the *bcdedit's* mentioned earlier in this thread?

I would be interested in your experiences and specific workarounds that have worked successfully with Vista backups and restores!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Sep 23rd, 2007 at 3:35pm

TheShadow wrote on Sep 23rd, 2007 at 12:00pm:
Ok, I'm dumb....what does "Certified" do for you?
I'd have to guess that they don't want you using the older programs that may still work ,,,,, they want you to spend more money and get their latest and greatest.
That's a typical Symantec strategy.


This is what certified does for me.

I just tested restoring a Ghost 12 Vista backup onto a spare SATA harddrive that I was using on an XP pc (data volume not c: ).  

1. I deleted the partitions in XP, so it was empty.
2. I shutdown my Vista pc, and disconnected the 2 internal sata drives.
3. I connected my empty xp sata drive.
4. I booted from the Ghost 12 cd.
5. I selected "Restore my Computer".  Ghost 12 showed a menu of restore points (backup images) that I have stored on my external USB2 hard drive.
6,. I selected the latest c: Vista partition backup.
7. At this point I saw the options that Ghost 12 would use.  A couple things caught my attention:

* There was an option called "Restore original disk signature".  It seems that Symantec has fixed the problems with disk signatures.
* There was an option called "Restore Anywhere - not licensed" which was NOT checked.  I have no idea what this is, but must be a new feature coming in the future.  
* Restore MBR was NOT checked.  I suspect the reason for this is that my Vista c: backup is of ONLY the c: partition.  I have another partition on the physical hard drive.  I think if I had done a complete "Backup My Computer" backup with Ghost 12, it would restore everything.
* In fact, I couldn't modify any of the options.
[Edit:  I was using a ps2 keyboard connected to an add-in card on the Dell, so believe it is possible that the keyboard was not detected.  Will have to re-test that next time with usb keyboard.]
* Auto Validation was also checked.  That's a nice touch.

8. The restore took 11 minutes.
9. I exited Ghost 12 cd, and rebooted.
10. Vista started up normally (well it did give a message that it hadn't shut down properly and did I want safe mode or normal.  I selected normal)
11. Everything worked just fine in Vista from Ghost 12 restore.

Afterwards, I shut down and connected the restored Vista drive, back to the XP computer as a data drive ( d: ) and booted xp.

I started Partition Magic 8 to see if I could see what cylinder the partition was on.  PM8 immediately gave me an error message saying disk format was invalid!  (From that I would conclude that PM8 is NOT "vista certified").  

Conclusion:  I had expected to have to perform a Vista boot repair or edit the bcd because the "restore MBR" option was not checked.  I assume that Ghost 12 must have automatically written a MBR on the drive.  At any rate, Ghost 12 obviously understood the Vista drive layout during the restore.  That is what I would call "vista certified".

By the way, the sata drive had never been used as a boot device in XP, only as a secondary data volume.  And before I used the drive I checked with PM8 (under xp) and it said "First physical sector 63" for drive properties.  At this point, however I haven't been able to determine what/where the first physical sector is yet, because the xp utilities I have tried (PM8 and Partition Table Doctor) both complain that they don't understand the disk geometry.  I guess they aren't "vista certified" or "vista knowledgeable" yet.

My confidence of being able to restore my Vista Ghost 12 backup is good at this point.

(this post may not exactly belong in this thread, but I think it follows the lengthy discussion of what and how do you create/restore a Vista image.)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Sep 23rd, 2007 at 5:15pm
Another interesting fact about the Ghost 12 restore:  The c: Vista partition (on a Dell pc) is the 3rd partition on the physical hard drive.  However, it restored this 3rd partition to the 1st partition position on the clean/blank SATA drive.  

The first partition is a Dell utility partition
The second partition is the Dell Recovery partition
The third partition is the Vista c: drive
The fourth partition is one I created by shrinking the c: partition, a d: data partition

In the past, it was necessary to edit boot.ini to "fix up" the boot process so it works.  Now Ghost 12 took care of everything automatically.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by SamSysney on Sep 23rd, 2007 at 7:49pm

John. wrote on Sep 23rd, 2007 at 5:15pm:
Another interesting fact about the Ghost 12 restore:  The c: Vista partition (on a Dell pc) is the 3rd partition on the physical hard drive.  However, it restored this 3rd partition to the 1st partition position on the clean/blank SATA drive.  

The first partition is a Dell utility partition
The second partition is the Dell Recovery partition
The third partition is the Vista c: drive
The fourth partition is one I created by shrinking the c: partition, a d: data partition

In the past, it was necessary to edit boot.ini to "fix up" the boot process so it works.  Now Ghost 12 took care of everything automatically.


Hi

I am now trying Ghost 12 after reading these comments. BUT I am stuck after I boot the Ghost 12 CD. How do we create image of selected partition or whole disc like we do in simple floppy based GHOST 2003 or other versions.

Is it a must to install Ghost12 under Windows Vista or just it's bootable CD does the total job for simple imaging and restoring of partitions and discs.

To me a Clean image should be created when windows is not active and we do it through DOS like OLD GHOST method ...... but Ghost 12 is confusing so far...

....will appreciate if someone can post a step by step simple tutorial for Ghost 12 to create Vista images and restore with minimum possible installations (if possible) ...

Please Guys ......comment on this ASAP. I am badly Stuck...... with Ghost now.... on my ASUS Laptop ......

Sam









Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Sep 23rd, 2007 at 8:00pm

Quote:
Is it a must to install Ghost12 under Windows Vista or just it's bootable CD does the total job for simple imaging and restoring of partitions and discs.  

Yes, you must install Ghost 12.  (Ghost 9, 10, and 12 are all "hot" imaging products.)  You can't create a backup image from the emergency restore CD.


Quote:
will appreciate if someone can post a step by step simple tutorial for Ghost 12 to create Vista images and restore with minimum possible installations (if possible).

Look in the FAQ section:
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1176321672

Specifically, Rad has created a great detailed step by step guide.

Radified Guide to Norton Ghost 12



Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by justanotherday on Sep 24th, 2007 at 9:45am
I purchased a desktop from HP preloaded with Vista. I also purchased Ghost 12. I decided to load XP until Vista has SP1 released.

1 - Made image of Vista using Ghost 12.
2 - Installed XP. Deleted partitions and reformated.
3 - XP needed motherboard drivers. HP didn't have them. Motherboard manufacture didn't list my model motherboard.
4 - Gave up and decided to restore my Vista image.
5 - Restore hit 99% done and then would give an error message ... can't quite remember what it was.
6 - Tried restoring other Vista images made (all had been previously verified) but some error message.
7 - Called Symantec. Cant restore Vista images over XP drive according to them. My guess it is because I changed partition sizes. Said I would have to manually load Vista from scratch and then do a restore of Vista image.

Bottom line I want to use a product that works and is competent like Ghost 2003. I loved that product but I will admit it was sssllllooooowwwww.


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Sep 24th, 2007 at 12:00pm

justanotherday wrote on Sep 24th, 2007 at 9:45am:
7 - Called Symantec. Cant restore Vista images over XP drive according to them. My guess it is because I changed partition sizes. Said I would have to manually load Vista from scratch and then do a restore of Vista image.

I'm surprised to read that because that is essentially what I did:  I took a hard drive from XP and restored a Ghost 12 Vista backup onto it, all in 11 minutes without any problems.

If you had "wiped" the disk, then it would be like purchasing a new/blank/unformatted disk.  If what Symantec said was true (which I doubt) that surely should have worked.


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by NightOwl on Sep 25th, 2007 at 9:36am
justanotherday


Quote:
Bottom line I want to use a product that works and is competent like Ghost 2003. I loved that product but I will admit it was sssllllooooowwwww.

Hmmmm....compared to *what*?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by justanotherday on Sep 25th, 2007 at 9:44am
Do you really need to ask that?
Been doing backups for 10 years. Dos based back ups have always ran slower than windows based backups. I have never felt good about windows backups. Been searching for another product that supports DOS ran image backups. Asked their tech support how could a competent backup be made while windows is in use. Something about PHyLock ... referred me to documentation. But when reading it I found this in their notes

"It should be noted that the consistency is based on a point in time.
Although there is an attempt to pick a "clean" point in time, there is no
guarantee that all software programs, internal caches, and the like are
in a clean state at that point.  This is true of ALL backup software that
is backing up a volume that is in use."

Anyway that answers my question on trusting windows backups.

Oh and back to your comment. Put a clock to ghost 2003 DOS image time for a large drive. Then put a clock to Ghost 12 windows backup. You tell me. If I'm wrong I will apologize for incorrect information.


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by NightOwl on Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:01am
justanotherday


Quote:
Do you really need to ask that?

Well, I thought you were comparing it to another DOS based backup or imaging program.  I have never been convinced that Windows *hot-imaging* is completely trust worthy--and your quote seems to once again suggest that even the engineers are not completely convinced either!  I have yet to install and try a Windows based imaging solution for that reason!  I will probably try one only if DOS Ghost will no longer meet my needs!

Who exactly are you referencing?


Quote:
Asked their tech support how could a competent backup be made while windows is in use. Something about PHyLock ... referred me to documentation. But when reading it I found this in their notes

"It should be noted that the consistency is based on a point in time.
Although there is an attempt to pick a "clean" point in time, there is no
guarantee that all software programs, internal caches, and the like are
in a clean state at that point.  This is true of ALL backup software that
is backing up a volume that is in use."

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Sep 27th, 2007 at 8:20am
Justanotherday, can you kindly provide a link to the quote (Reply #106):


Quote:
"It should be noted that the consistency is based on a point in time.  Although there is an attempt to pick a "clean" point in time, there is no guarantee that all software programs, internal caches, and the like are in a clean state at that point.  This is true of ALL backup software that is backing up a volume that is in use."

Who authored this statement?  Where did you find it?  When?

For information that should help quell your concerns, please review the thread Hot Imaging.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by justanotherday on Sep 27th, 2007 at 1:08pm
Here is the emails I sent and recieved. Start at the bottom and work your way up. I will post the readme in the next reply.

Once again if I am incorrect I apologize.





http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/utilities.html

Regards,
David F.
TeraByte Unlimited


got a link


Hello,

You'd use PHYLock with IFW.  PHYLock has a readme.
Regards,
--
David F.
TeraByte Unlimited
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com


David,
Are there any articles about making images of windows while in windows and how this is done and if it works 100% correct. I am a Engineer and I am really curious how this can be done with files in use.



Hello,

1 They all can be used.
2 yes.
3 no, you don't have to be, but you can use IFD or IFL or IFW from a PEBuilder type of disc (plug-in on main IFW support page) if that's your preference.



Regards,
--
David F.
TeraByte Unlimited
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com


I just bought a pc with Vista.

1.       Which of your products are Vista compatible and which are not?
2.       Can I make an image of my PC that is running Vista for storage and then install XP. Then down the road when I want to go back to Vista be able to restore the Vista image over the XP in use? Tried this with Ghost ver 12 and it doesn’t work, Symantec says I have to manually reload Vista first and then I can restore my stored image.
3.       Do I need to run from DOS to make images. I don’t think I trust making images from windows when files are in use? Can you explain this to me. I was always told the most reliable way is to boot into a program and not use window.
4.       I like ghost 2003. I do not like any of the versions since then. Is your product similar to the DOS versions of ghost. I never had any image problems with it. I just don’t think it works with Vista. Something about the way Vista formats drive???

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by justanotherday on Sep 27th, 2007 at 1:10pm
Second paragraph down. This is the first section of the readme. You can follow the link in the previous post and read it yourself.

And yes if I am misunderstanding I again apologize.





PHYLock(TM) Version 2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PHYLock is an add-on software component for Win NT/2K/XP/2K3/AMD64 that
enables Image for Windows to maintain a consistent backup of an unlocked
partition or volume.

It should be noted that the consistency is based on a point in time.
Although there is an attempt to pick a "clean" point in time, there is no
guarantee that all software programs, internal caches, and the like are
in a clean state at that point.  This is true of ALL backup software that
is backing up a volume that is in use.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by justanotherday on Sep 27th, 2007 at 1:25pm
Years ago when the first version of being able to make images via windows I made a call to Ghost tech support. I think back then the software did a virtual DOS drive or somethning. I however never used it. The support person told me using DOS boot disk was the only true reliable way.

BTW this was way back when tech support wasn't some one who spoke another language and was reading from a list of canned replies. This guy seemed to really know what he was doing.

I have called Symantec several times. Asked for supervisors. Asked them for answers to these questions. They didn't know and I was told I would get a call back soon with answers to my questions. NO CALLS! No surprise though. Found the same problem with HP. Interesting that when a company becomes part of a larger corp support seems to be very limited, usually email only.

In my humble opinion I wish Ghost was not part of Symantec.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Pleonasm on Sep 27th, 2007 at 3:46pm
Justanotherday, thanks for posting this information.

It appears that the concern expressed by TeraByte Unlimited is not really directed toward “hot imaging” as a generic image backup approach; rather, it is specifically focused upon the performance of their PHYLock product.  If TeraByte Unlimited says that PHYLock can’t guarantee a consistent snapshot of a hard disk drive while running in Windows, then I have no reason to doubt that statement.  However, the fact that TeraByte Unlimited cannot achieve this objective doesn’t mean that “hot imaging” is a flawed approach -- it implies only that the implementation of “hot imaging” by one vendor (TeraByte Unlimited) has undesirable limitations.

Therefore, you may wish to take a close look at ShadowProtect and Norton Ghost 9/10/12, all of which use the snapshot driver authored by StorageCraft.  There is no evidence (logical or empirical) of which I am aware that suggests these products fail to reliably and consistently produce a stable, point-in-time image of a hard disk drive from within Windows.

Concerning customer support, note the accolades for the ShadowProtect product described in this thread.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by ghostuser on Sep 28th, 2007 at 12:04pm
FYI, I posted an update on my experience in another related thread:

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1185409722/15

Basically gave up on Ghost 2003 with Vista.  Couldn't run Vista memory diagnostics, too much mucking around, and restore results were not sufficiently reliable.

Went with Vista Ultimate's built-in "Windows Complete PC Backup" imaging, and darned if it didn't work perfectly.  Will consider Ghost 12 after I hear more feedback, although this thread is encouraging so far.

Say, which version of PartitionMagic is Vista-certified now?  I'm only using a small chunk of my 200GB HD for Vista and apps, and would like to create a D: data drive, rather than have everything on C: on my Toshiba laptop.

Also, has anyone tried resizing their partitions in Vista using its built-in management tools?  I found this via Google:

How to resize a partition in Windows Vista:
http://vistarewired.com/2007/02/16/how-to-resize-a-partition-in-windows-vista/

Can anyone confirm this?  In the article's comments section, several posters referred to the difference between a volume and a dynamic drive in Vista is important as to whether resizing will work or not.  How would I know by looking at the drive in Vista's storage managment console?

If it works without reformatting, then we might not need PM for simple partition creation/resizing on the fly.

Thanks,

GhostUser

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Brian on Sep 29th, 2007 at 6:17am

John. wrote on Sep 23rd, 2007 at 3:35pm:
Conclusion:  I had expected to have to perform a Vista boot repair or edit the bcd because the "restore MBR" option was not checked.  I assume that Ghost 12 must have automatically written a MBR on the drive.  At any rate, Ghost 12 obviously understood the Vista drive layout during the restore.  That is what I would call "vista certified".

Ghost4me, that's really interesting. Success!

Out of interest, does ptedit show a 63 sector or a 2048 sector partition offset on the restored HD and on the original HD?

Was the original Vista partition created by Vista during the Vista installation?

Was Vista the first partition on the original HD?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Sep 29th, 2007 at 8:34am

Brian wrote on Sep 29th, 2007 at 6:17am:
[quote author=Ghost4me link=1170184062/90#99 date=1190579733]
Out of interest, does ptedit show a 63 sector or a 2048 sector partition offset on the restored HD and on the original HD?
Was the original Vista partition created by Vista during the Vista installation?
Was Vista the first partition on the original HD?


Hi Brian.  I created a thread in the Ghost 9/10/12 board with more info about my test.
Ghost 12 restore results with Vista

1. See the thread re offsets.  (do you have link to the ptedit program?)
2. The original Vista partition came pre-installed on a new Dell pc.
3. No it wasn't.  That's the interesting thing:  Ghost either fixed up the partition order during the restore, or else the order doesn't matter anymore with bcd.  (see other thread).

Title: Increasing your chance of a successful restore
Post by k4kjf on Oct 14th, 2007 at 8:35pm
Now that I'm building up my first Vista system and reading these 8 pages in catch-up mode, it sounds like a Ghost 2003 restore of a Vista image to the same hard drive where it had previously been installed is pretty much a sure thing.  And although the risk of an unsatisfactory result might be slightly higher, restore to an empty, never-used-before drive will probably also work if you use the three bcdedit commands as described by adenewton above in reply #61.

But, I would think that if your Vista hard drive dies and you have no choice but to restore to a new, unused disk, that might you increase your chances of success to 100% again if you take the time to do a preliminary clean install of bare Vista on the hard drive from the original media first.  This would make any required MBR (and any other)? modifications to the hard drive…. then go ahead and restore your previously made Ghost 2003 image over the top of that in the DOS environment.  Now your chance of failure should be reduced to about as close to zero as you can get?

Does that sound right?

Ken

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Christer on Oct 15th, 2007 at 2:38am
k4kjf,


Quote:
But, I would think that if your Vista hard drive dies and you have no choice but to restore to a new, unused disk, that might you increase your chances of success to 100% again if you take the time to do a preliminary clean install of bare Vista on the hard drive from the original media first.  This would make any required MBR (and any other)? modifications to the hard drive…. then go ahead and restore your previously made Ghost 2003 image over the top of that in the DOS environment.  Now your chance of failure should be reduced to about as close to zero as you can get?  

Does that sound right?

On my current XP system, I have only created images of the system partition, not the whole disk. This means that I have not captured everything for a straight forward restore of the whole disk to a fresh HDD but only the system partition. I have not had the "opportunity" to test but my idea is to make a clean installation of XP only and do the partitioning and formating of the other partitions. Next, I would restore the image of the system partition.

Would it work? I think so and why not on Vista?

Christer

Title: Vista restore to "new" hard drive using Ghost 2003
Post by k4kjf on Oct 24th, 2007 at 10:52am
I twice completed the exercise suggested in my post #116 above and commented on by Christer in post #117 to verify that the concept is good.  In both cases the restores were successful, :) but with an unexpected hiccup that turned out to be easy to get around.

These experiments were conducted on a new, not-yet-activated, Vista Home Premium installation. The intention here was to verify that in the event of catastrophic failure, a previously made Ghost 2003 image of the system could be successfully restored to a new hard drive.

Activation issues are ignored. If you are restoring your system for good and valid reasons you should be able to convince the Microsoft Tech on the Activation hotline of that fact and should with his/her help be able to subsequently reactivate your system.

In both tests, the target drives were old retired Win2k or XP hard drives which had never held a Vista Installation. A 13 GB Quatum drive was used in the first test, and a 20 GB Maxtor in the second.

I'll describe the sequence of events for restoring to only one of the drives, but both were identical.

(1) I installed Vista Home Premium to the target drive using a copy of the original installation DVD. Any existing partition on the drive was deleted and re-created. This step is merely to prepare the drive (especially the MBR) to later receive a previously made image of a Vista system partition.

(2) Then for the restore I rebooted off a copy of the Ghost 2003 CD-ROM, the one that mounts the CD as Drive C and allows changing to the C:\Support folder and executing Ghost.exe from there.

(3) After Ghost was running under DOS, I replaced the Ghost 2003 CD-ROM with a DVD disc containing the files from a previously made Ghost 2003 partion-to-image backup.  (By-the-way, the C-partition from the original Vista Home Premium installation from which the image was made, was 9.7 GB and the resulting image files on the DVD totaled 3.4 GB. I had selected High Compression when the image was made.) I then initiated a partition-from-image restore operation and let it run to completion which took 28 min.

(4) Then I rebooted and after POST completed, was presented with a simple black screen containing white text stating the following:
  Windows failed to start.  A recent hardware or software change might be the cause. Insert windows installation disc, reboot and choose “Repair your computer”.
  File: \Windows\system32\winload.exe
  Status: -xc000000e
  Info: The selected entry could not be loaded because the application is missing or corrupt.


(5) I loaded the original Vista Installation DVD and rebooted via ctrl-alt-del, and following instructions, selected "Repair". Shortly the System Recovery Options dialog box was presented stating the following:

   Select an operating system to repair and click Next.  Only Windows Vista operating systems are listed and can be repaired:
  Operating System: Microsoft Windows Vista
  Partition size: 0 MB
  Location: (Unknown)


Then another dialog box appeared on top:
“   Windows found problems with your computer’s startup options.  Do you want to apply repairs and restart your computer?
  View Details:


When I selected "Repair Details" the following text appeared:
  Name: Microsoft Windows Vista
  Identifier: {485B7………………………..}
  Windows Device: Partition=Not found


I clicked “Repair and restart”.  Didn't take long and I soon saw the logon screen. After entering my password, the restored desktop appeared along with a message at lower right first stating:
  Installing Device driver – click to view details…

Then it changed to:
  Your devices are ready to use.  Device driver software installed successfully

And finally a dialog box appeared stating:
  You must restart your computer to apply these changes… Clicked “Restart Now”.

After the restart all appeared normal. The image had been successfully restored to a "fresh" hard drive! I rebooted several times and each time the system came straight up, just like it did originally.

So…. apparently the partition table in the MBR as written for the original, initial Vista installation is not quite correct for the restored image – even though I restored a partition image to the original partition created by the initial Vista installation.  Not quite sure about why that occurred, but allowing the Vista install process to "repair" the restored system seems to be a simple fix.

Anyhow, that's how it worked for me.  I'd be very interested to hear of any other experiences applying similar techniques.

Ken

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Christer on Oct 24th, 2007 at 3:17pm
Ken,
thanks for your information, very interesting!

I manage our computer at the flying club. It is a BOAC (Box Of Assembled Components), inherited from a number of "scrapped" computers but it works. If something should happen to the hard disk, I always have a clone physically installed but not connected. It's a matter of minutes to get the system up and running again.

When I have cloned a working hard disk to another, I always test run the clone (with the original disconnected). On first boot, XP is a bit confused because it is installed on a hard disk it has never seen before ... :o ... and the "found new hardware" icon appears in the Notification Area. When the new hardware has been installed (no input from me), a prompt to reboot appears.

My guess is that something similar occurrs with Vista but Vista "takes it more seriously".

I wonder what happens during the repair? I have never had to do such an exercise on XP but I have "heard" that all updates to XP has to be reinstalled. What about Vista?

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by NightOwl on Oct 25th, 2007 at 10:29am
k4kjf

Thank you for your testing...and reporting the results here--it's always helpful when members contribute this kind of data!

But, there is a *confounding variable* that has probably crept into your test (that you may not be aware of!).

In reply #116, you stated:


Quote:
But, I would think that if your Vista hard drive dies and you have no choice but to restore to a new, unused disk, that might you increase your chances of success to 100% again if you take the time to do a preliminary clean install of bare Vista on the hard drive from the original media first.  This would make any required MBR (and any other)? modifications to the hard drive….

But, in your tests you used:


Quote:
In both tests, the target drives were old retired Win2k or XP hard drives which had never held a Vista Installation.


Your test target HDD's are not *new, unused* HDD's!

I've done some testing, but not with Vista--but I have looked at the Master Boot Record (MBR)--primarily the absolute sector 0--and if a HDD has been previously partitioned--then an initial MBR has been created, and usually Ghost 2003, Windows installation programs, and partitioning programs (such as PartitionMagic)--do not touch that absolute sector 0, except to update the Master Boot Partition Table if re-partitioning occurs--to show the partition boundaries--but the basic MBR structure is left intact!

So, whatever partitioning tool was used initially--that MBR structure continues going forward except for the adjustments to the Master Boot Partition Table!

I have been using this MBR tool (the DOS version) to look at the MBR in DOS:  MBRWizard - The MBR Management Utility.

If you have a *used* HDD, you can make it look like an unused *virgin* HDD to any partitioning or OS installation software simply by zero filling the absolute sector 0!  And the above mentioned tool can do that for you!  There are other tools as well that will *wipe* a HDD--but you have to make sure they wipe the MBR as well as the *data* portion of the HDD if you want the HDD to be treated as an *unused* HDD!

So, most likely the structure of the MBR on your *used* HDD was carried forward even with the re-partitioning done by the WinVista installation program.  If you have the time and energy, it would be instructive if you first zeroed the MBR absolute sector 0 first and then performed your testing of an installation and restore of a prior image to see if the installation goes without a hitch--and you can avoid the *repair* installation!

(By the way--if you want to confirm if the MBR is left intact--you can use the MBRWizard to edit the MBR--in absolute sector 0, there is usually some *text* verbiage that is there in the event of a boot failure--mine usually has something to the effect of *...missing system files, etc., etc....*--I edit *missing* to be *mizzing*--this changes only the text message spelling, but does not change any other aspect of the MBR.  Now I can tract if the MBR is changed or replaced by a installation, Ghost procedure, or partitioning program--if *mizzing* is still there after preforming a procedure (for instance--a restore of a Ghost image taken before I made the editing change to the *missing*--the program did not alter the MBR basic structure!)

I think a *virgin* install of Vista creates a MBR that is 200 sectors long--while most previous programs only *understand* the previous standard of 63 sectors long.  If you use Ghost 2003's ability to *force* the saving and restoring of the master boot region, it will only see and work with that first 63 sectors--this would create a problem if Vista is expecting that 200 sector boot region!

But, apparently if you install Vista on a HDD that already has an old 63 sector boot region--i.e. the HDD has been previously partitioned and the MBR created was that old standard of 63 sectors--Vista will still install and work just fine.  You could confirm that with the above *tracking* technique mentioned above!

You have a perfect *test setup* to do some interesting experiments--if you have the time and inclination!

Title: Updates persist through a Repair?
Post by k4kjf on Oct 25th, 2007 at 6:45pm
Christer - yes, I've noticed that also.  The first reboot of an XP system after a system partition restore is little rough. But after the hardware is reconciled and any new device drivers are added, all is smooth sailing again.  

Regarding Updates:  It appears that they do persist through the repair operation– at least under Vista.  However, I did have automatic updates turned on in the experimental system here.  After I read your post, I ran Windows Update and saw the following:

Windows is up to date
Available: 2 optional updates
No new important updates are available for your computer
Most recent check for updates: Today at 6:43 PM
Updates were installed: Today at 6:43 PM
You have Windows set to: Automatically install new updates every day
at 3:00 AM


However, when I looked at Update History, the first 40 had an older date stamp of 10/22/07 which was the day I originally let them load, after which I created the system partition image.  Only the very last one had a date of 10/24/07, which was the day I completed the restore and it was probably the one referred to in the report statement: Updates were installed: Today at 6:43 PM.

To be sure of this at the next opportunity I'll make sure the Internet connection is open when I reboot after the restore, and then I'll check to see if update history shows the old updates as still being present.  (I hope all these restore shenanigans don't mess up the Update History report.  I would think that if "Repair" stripped them out, the history report would properly reflect that they are gone.)

Another consideration might be that there are probably different levels of a "repair".  The repairs to my Vista system took I believe under a minute to accomplish – not long enough to reload programs that included a lot of pre-update code.  But there probably are other types of repairs that are more extensive and would indeed involve restoring pre-update code,  This might be a tough one to predict.

Ken

Title: Start with a clean MBR...
Post by k4kjf on Oct 25th, 2007 at 6:47pm
NightOwl – Yes, I agree that there would be a leftover MBR on the retired XP and Win2K drives and that they are not the same as whast would be present on a new, unused disk,… and that this might indeed affect test results.  

However assuming that this method of starting with a retired XP drive is shown to be viable, I could argue that in the event of a catastrophic failure of my Vista system, I could take new fresh drive and turn it into "retired XP drive" by loading XP first, then do the Vista install to prepare the system to receive the previously made Vista image, and finally restoring that image.  But yes, that is rather cumbersome at best!

I like your suggestion of first filling sector 0 with zeros, then loading Vista, and finally completing the system partition restore.  

I think your primary point was that because some sort of MBR code was there, Vista might have let it persist, or parts of it anyway.  Whereas if sector 0 was all zeros, Vista would load the whole MBR and the end result might be more compatible with future system partition restore operations.  

I'm going to have to get MBRWizard.  Should help me in understanding what is going on here.  I had used DiskProbe to look at 1's and 0's on a disk many years ago with NT systems and was thinking of trying to locate a copy for these Vista experiments.  But MBRWizard is probably newer and better.  I'll check it out.

There is always FDISK /MBR or the "Rewrite MBR" utility found in the Ghost 9.0 Emergency Boot Environment, but they are probably no good with Vista's larger MBR.  In fact when I first ran into the problem as described in my post #118, I tried the Ghost 9.0 "Rewrite MBR" utility – Didn't help a bit!

After the #118 post, I did another experiment.  After I'd let the system complete it's repair after a restore, and it was booting smoothly and properly, I did another restore of the same image fully expecting that this time it would be smooth sailing, that whatever the original problem was, the repair had taken care of it never again to trouble that particular hard disc.  Not true!  Had exactly the same problem, and had to take the same steps (repair…) to fix it.  I had imagined that the Repair function was doing something with the partition table, or something like that.  Some area outside the data of my Ghost image.  But given this new twist, apparently it is fixing something in the system partition – something that is captured in the data of the Ghost image.  

And, at this point, I know nothing about Vista's Boot Configuration Data store.  Probably a dangereous situation!  I need to do some more reading….

Let me know if you have any more thoughts on this.  I will definitely get MBRWizard and start a restore sequence with a zero filled sector 0, and see where that leads.  

Ken

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Brian on Oct 25th, 2007 at 7:29pm
k4kjf,

I think you will find these threads interesting.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=173214

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=185731


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Christer on Oct 26th, 2007 at 4:02am
Ken,


Quote:
To be sure of this at the next opportunity I'll make sure the Internet connection is open when I reboot after the restore, and then I'll check to see if update history shows the old updates as still being present.

Maybe you mean what I would suggest, to disconnect from the internet until you have checked what happened to installed updates. Those installed after the image was created will "be gone" because they were never there but the ones included in the image might get lost in the "repair".

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by k4kjf on Oct 26th, 2007 at 1:03pm
Brian - Excellent!  In my quick review last night it was clear that many have experienced the situation of needing to do a repair after a restore to fresh media.  I think some of the postings indicated that getting the BCD store set up properly prior to creating the image might be the key to avoid a repair.  Hope that proves to be true. Good information there - Thanks for the references.

Christer - Yes, Sorry, that is what I meant! :)  I'll leave the Ethernet cable unplugged until I check installed update status.  

Ken

Title: updates persist through a Repair
Post by k4kjf on Oct 27th, 2007 at 2:33pm
I confirmed that Windows Updates present at the time a Ghost 2003 image is made of the system partition, persist through a "Repair" operation. The is true at least for a repair operation as required to fix the "missing winload.exe" problem that arises when rebooting after restoring to a different hard drive than where the image was originally created.  

First I disconnected the Ethernet cable from the computer's NIC, and didn't connect it again until after I had a chance to examine Windows Update History.  There was no way the updates could sneak back in as part of the repair or the reboot/restart operation!

Then I installed Vista Home Premium on a retired XP drive to prepare for a subsequent restore of a Vista system partition image made a few days ago (10/22).  This image was made immediately after 40 updates totaling 93 MB were installed to the Vista system.

After restore, the infamous "missing winload.exe" screen was presented on reboot and it suggested I do a Repair.  I did, and this time paid more attention.  The repair is fast!  It was less than 5 sec between I clicked the OK button to allow the indicated repairs to be made, and when the repair routine finished and started an automatic reboot.  It is clearly not reloading MB's of software from the installation DVD to fix this problem.

The reboot was successful and upon examining Update History, all of the original 40 updates were still listed as being installed, and all were date-stamped with the original install date of 10/22/07.  A screen shot of a partial listing is attached.

At that point I reconnected the Ethernet cable and on checking now, I noticed that one more update has been automatically added since that time.  

But the caveat here is that I'm sure there are differing level of repairs, and for some extensive repairs, I would think there is a good chance that installed updates might be affected.  However, at least judging from the speed of which the "missing winload.exe" problem is fixed, its probably not loading a lot of original s/w from the install disk that needs to be updated.

Which, I suppose is good.  If the repair step turns out to be unavoidable, it is fast, and all of the previously installed updates are still present.

Ken

PartialUpdateHistory.GIF (Attachment deleted)

Title: Startup Repair is required.
Post by k4kjf on Oct 27th, 2007 at 7:29pm
I had hoped that following NightOwl's suggestion above regarding starting with a wiped MBR might force the Vista install process to do a more thorough job in setting up MBR code and data and perhaps eliminate the need to do a "Repair" after an image  restore to a different hard drive.  Also, mustang's posting #15 in the first thread mentioned in Brian's posting above seemed to give hope.  But it didn’t work for me.

I ran mbrwizard with the /wipe=MBR option, then dumped the MBR to a file and examined the result with DEBUG to verify that there were zeros in at least the first couple of successive display screens.  Then also took the unnecessary step of demonstrating that a subsequent boot attempt failed!

After that Vista Home Premium was installed (uneventfully) and then a previously made Ghost 2003 image of the Vista system partition from another hard drive was restored. But, after reboot, the same "missing winload.exe" screen was presented as seen earlier. Running Startup Repair from the Installation disk fixed it in short order – same as before.

On re-reading it, I think I might have misinterpreted mustang's posting. I think his successful restore to a disk that had been recently low-level formatted was a disk restore, not a system partition restore.  Later in his posting he states:

"I low level formatted the 120 GB drive. This time I only restored the system partition without the MBR. As you would expect, I got the missing winload.exe error. It was easily fixed with a Startup Repair using the Vista disk. This doesn't seem bad to me. Restoring XP without the MBR can also result in a non bootable system if the disk has previously been used in the XP system that is being restored. The easiest fix is to repair the MBR."

So it doesn't seem to matter if the MBR is a left-over XP MBR, or if it is all zeros, a simple restore of just the system partition will not boot until Startup Repair is run from the Vista install disk. And perhaps the intermediate step I'd been following of doing an initial Vista install to prepare for the system partition restore is not actually required. Maybe all you have to do is restore the system partition, do a Startup Repair and go!  Will have to try that.

It would appear that using the Startup Repair function is the only way to get a Vista system that has had just its system partition restored to a different hard disk to boot up properly…The guys posting to the Acronis True Image forum were rather irate at this state-of-affairs, but I think it is an acceptable situation.

Ken

Title: Re: Startup Repair is required.
Post by Ghost4me on Oct 27th, 2007 at 8:12pm

k4kjf wrote on Oct 27th, 2007 at 7:29pm:
It would appear that using the Startup Repair function is the only way to get a Vista system that has had just its system partition restored to a different hard disk to boot up properly…The guys posting to the Acronis True Image forum were rather irate at this state-of-affairs, but I think it is an acceptable situation.


That wasn't the experience I had with Ghost 12 and Vista.  See the thread Ghost 12 restore results with Vista.

I restored my Vista Home Premium backup image onto a previously-used XP drive, and then ran another test restoring my Vista Home Premium backup image onto a zeroed drive.  Both times I was able to boot the restored image without any problem or intervention or repair etc.

Obviously my experience was different than yours.  Not sure of the details or why yours didn't work as well.

Title: Re: Startup Repair is required.
Post by nbree on Oct 27th, 2007 at 8:31pm

John. wrote on Oct 27th, 2007 at 8:12pm:
That wasn't the experience I had with Ghost 12 and Vista.

Both "Norton Ghost" 12 and genuine Ghost from GSS2 are both written to automatically update the BCD, so no repair is necessary with either.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Christer on Oct 28th, 2007 at 4:06am
I have never used Vista, only seen it "on the news" but I have a few thoughts:

Does the Vista CD have a "FIX MBR" option? If so, what happens if you restore the image but reboot from the Vista CD and let it run "FIX MBR" prior to rebooting from the "fixed MBR" on the restored HDD?

In Vista, does the "found new hardware" dialog appear when connecting a new hard disk? By new I mean a model of hard disk never connected to the system before? If so, does it appear when the restore has been done to a target model, never seen before?

The message "missing winload.exe" is confusing. Isn't that a message received when the search path to the *.exe has changed but some *.ini file (or whatever) has not been updated?

Christer

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by k4kjf on Oct 28th, 2007 at 2:17pm
Christer -


Quote:
Does the Vista CD have a "FIX MBR" option? If so, what happens if you restore the image but reboot from the Vista CD and let it run "FIX MBR" prior to rebooting from the "fixed MBR" on the restored HDD?

On page 42 of the book Windows Vista Inside Out by Bott, Siechert and Stinson, they provide a troubleshooting tip related to a a situation where the Vista option no longer appears on multi-boot system menu.  They state that if you install Vista as a 2nd operating system, the new Vista boot menu will incorporate the changes from the older boot menu.  But if you install a fresh copy of XP on a system already running Vista, you will overwrite the MBR with one that doesn't recognize the Windows Vista Boot Loader.  They further tell you that you can repair the damage by opening a command prompt window in the older operating system and run the following command from the Windows Vista Installation DVD:

d:\Boot\Bootsect.exe –NT60 All

They state that after you run this command the Windows Vista Menu will have returned and then they go on to tell you how add in a boot option for your earlier version of Windows.

It sounds like you maybe could run that command from the DOS environment provided by booting from the Ghost 2003 CD-ROM instead of running the Vista Instllation Repair option to fix the "missing winload.exe problem  I'll give it a try.


Quote:
In Vista, does the "found new hardware" dialog appear when connecting a new hard disk? By new I mean a model of hard disk never connected to the system before? If so, does it appear when the restore has been done to a target model, never seen before?

I think so, but I've run out of retired XP hard drives that have never seen Vista, so cannot try it again and watch closely.


Quote:
The message "missing winload.exe" is confusing. Isn't that a message received when the search path to the *.exe has changed but some *.ini file (or whatever) has not been updated?

The error message on reboot does indeed complain that winload.exe is missing.  But when you run Repair, it reports, "Partition size: 0 MB", and "Windows Device: Partition=Not found".  So maybe its really a problem related to data in the partition table, or pointers to that data?

Ken


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Christer on Oct 28th, 2007 at 5:12pm
Ken,
thank you very much for your comprehensive answer!

Christer

Title: Restore Vista System Partition with Ghost 2003
Post by k4kjf on Oct 29th, 2007 at 9:53pm
I've managed to restore a Vista Home Premium system partition using Ghost 2003 nine times now.  Eight of those were to a different hard drive than where the image originated or to a hard drive where the MBR had been wiped with zeros. One was just a simple restore to the same hard drive as where the image originated from.  The target drives were retired XP or Win2K drives - some with a "left-over" MBR from a previous XP installation or some where I'd used MBRWizard to wipe the MBR.  All nine were eventually able to boot  successfully, but in all but the simple restore to the same hard drive, I had to use the "Repair Your Computer" function from the Vista installation DVD to fix startup problems.  And in cases where I had initially wiped the MBR, I had to do "something" to provide a "starter MBR" for the Repair function to work with.  The "something" turned out to be either completing a preliminary installation of Vista to the drive from the distribution DVD, or using Ghost 2003 or 9.0 utilities to rewrite the MBR (obviously a pre-Vista MBR, but apparently enough so that Repair can work with it).

It appears that the target drive can either contain a previous XP (or presumably other earlier Windows OS) installation, or it can have had its MBR wiped with zeros. Not sure about a fresh out-of-the-box hard drive, but I assume it would react like a used drive where the MBR had been wiped.  

If you decide to try something like this, I'd suggest the following steps:

1. Restore the image of the previously made system partition to the target drive. On about half of the tests so far, two partitions were pre-existing on the target drive and I booted from the Ghost 2003 CD-ROM and restored from an image residing in the 2nd partition on the same physical drive.  On the rest of the tests, I didn't have a data partition on the target drive, so I booted from the Ghost 9.0 CD-ROM, started network services, mapped to a networked drive, and restored the image to a partition that occupied the entire drive using the "Restore Legacy Ghost Image" utility.

2. After the restore completes, its interesting to try to reboot at that point.  If you were overlaying old XP programs, data, and MBR on the target drive, you will see the "missing winload.exe" screen. If you started with the MBR of the target drive wiped with zeros, you will just see a blinking cursor at screen upper left.  

3. If you do see the missing winload.exe screen, load the Vista installation DVD, reboot, let it run awhile, choose the language, then select "Repair Your Computer". Follow the prompts to let it complete the repair.  It will then reboot and this time it will come up to the login screen, and finally to the desktop after you log in.  It will then almost immediately want to restart again.  Let it do so and you're done.

4. If instead you see just the blinking cursor at upper left because you started with a wiped MBR (or presumably with a clean, out-of-the-box hard drive?) either complete a preliminary Vista installation from the distribution DVD to the hard drive (takes awhile) or boot off a Ghost 9.0 CD-ROM and use the furnished "Rewrite MBR" utility (faster), or boot off the Ghost 2003 CD-ROM and use gdisk to rewrite the MBR (fastest).  Then try another reboot off the hard drive and this time you should see the "missing winload.exe" screen.  Proceed as described in step 3 above to complete the restore.

If I started with a zeroed MBR and skipped this step of supplying a "starter MBR" and just went straight to Repair, (hoping Repair would take care of everything) the Repair programs' actions and message box text were encouraging (it found my restored system partition!) but on reboot I still only saw a blinking cursor at upper left.  Only after I wrote a pre-Vista MBR to the drive was Repair able to fix the system so it would boot.

These were my experiences anyway. BTW, these tests were using a system still in its first 30 days and which had not yet been activated.  Maybe with a previously activated system there will more issues besides convincing the Microsoft activation line representative that you are doing this for good and valid reasons?  Hope not!

I'd be very interested in hearing of the experiences of anyone who attempts Vista system partition restores using similar methods.

Oh, I should also mention that I was not able to use the "\boot\bootsect.exe –NT60 All" command  (mentioned in reply #131 above) to write a Vista-compatible MBR to the drive.  I could not get it to execute in the DOS environment provided by booting from the Ghost 2003 CD-ROM.  Microsoft Knowledgebase Article # 919529 has more information on bootsect.exe if you are interested.

Ken

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Brian on Oct 29th, 2007 at 10:13pm
k4kjf,

Fantastic series of tests. I'm sure you have made the DOS people here very happy.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by psalterfc on Nov 1st, 2007 at 12:37pm
hi, ijust joined the radified community.

well i came across another software that allows you ghost windows vista.
maybe i will get back to you  as soon as i am through will the results .

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by NightOwl on Nov 5th, 2007 at 8:51am
psalterfc


Quote:
well i came across another software that allows you ghost windows vista.

Well, that was a *tease*--please share more--we like to learn here  ;) !

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by NightOwl on Nov 7th, 2007 at 1:15pm
k4kjf

If you are still watching this thread, now that I have had some time to think further about your original statement in Reply #116:


Quote:
But, I would think that if your Vista hard drive dies and you have no choice but to restore to a new, unused disk, that might you increase your chances of success to 100% again if you take the time to do a preliminary clean install of bare Vista on the hard drive from the original media first.  This would make any required MBR (and any other)? modifications to the hard drive…. then go ahead and restore your previously made Ghost 2003 image over the top of that in the DOS environment.  Now your chance of failure should be reduced to about as close to zero as you can get?

I think your hope of reducing the *failure* of restoring and having a successful bootable Vista OS was doomed from the start--at least without having to do a *repair* of the boot process!

Looking back at the two workarounds that were suggested to make Ghost 2003 and Windows Vista work together:  Reply #70 of this thread and see the original reference here:  Vista and Symantec Ghost 8.x

The bottom line was that the Master Boot Record (MBR) NT signature was being zeroed out by the default restore process of Ghost 2003 or Ghost 8.x--and Vista's boot loader was unforgiving of that change (I presume a new NT-signature is created when you boot a Vista system--just as a new NT signature is created upon first boot of a WinXP system--even before the Windows interface ever is accessed for loading)--whereas WinXP would simple see a new NT signature and run a sub-routine to re-assign drive letters anew for the existing partitions.

Using the *-FDSP* switch prevents the NT signature from being zeroed and restores the original NT signature of the partition that the image file was made from--Vista would boot fine now!

Or, using the *BCDEDIT's*, changes Vista's behavior so it no longer *requires* the NT signature to match the previous NT signature--thus making Vista act like how WinXP acts in this regard.

So, creating the MBR by installing from the Vista installation disc, although the MBR now matches the original MBR of the original Vista installation--the disk NT signature will be different--and Vista will fail to boot until a repair is done!  The repair must simply make Vista accept the new NT signature so it points to the correct partition to find the next boot loader file that is needed--i.e. the *winload.exe*!

Windows Vista apparently does not *care* if the MBR is the old style *63 sectors* or the new style *200* sectors--only the absolute sector 0 is *critical*, and the NT signature has to match!

An interesting test would be to use MBRWizard in DOS to look at the NT signature, record those 4 data points, restore a Vista Ghost 2003 image without any switches, and then use MBRWizard to manually edit those four data points for the NT signature to be the same as the original NT signature as recorded originally above--and then see if the boot is successful without any further *repair*!

You can find out more than you want to know about MBR code here:  A View of the Win2k/XP MBR in a Disk Editor

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by k4kjf on Nov 7th, 2007 at 5:22pm
Hi NightOwl – Thanks for your comment.  

Guess I don't see it that way!   :) What I was looking for was to find a method and gain confidence in it for "saving" my Vista system in case something catastrophic happened to it.  For example, if the hard drive that contained my system partition died, I wanted to be back and running off a new hard drive in say, a few hours at most. It has been my  practice in the past with both Win2K and XP systems to periodically clone to my system partition to another "spare" hard drive via an intermediate step of writing the image to CDR or DVD discs.  Then I always at least boot off the newly cloned drive to assure myself that it is "ok", before storing it away on a closet shelf.  

So, at that point I have a ready-to-go hard drive, and a set of optical media containing the backup image.  Plus I'm pretty sure they are both good since the drive was cloned from the image saved on discs, and it boots!  

The requirement to do a repair from the Vista installation disc under certain circumstances troubles me not at all. It is a quick, easy, almost trivial step and has worked for me 12 times now, every time.  So my confidence level is high that should it come to that, the two step process of restoring the image to a new drive then doing a Repair, is certain to get me going again.

The requirement of having the original Vista installation disc in order to complete the repair is quite acceptable to me.  I dislike systems packaged by OEM's that contain lots of bloatware as well as the operating system and I much prefer a clean install from a set of purchased Microsoft operating system discs. I'll always have the operating system installation disc and recommend that others take this same approach.

I'm happy that within these constraints, a copy of both the Ghost 2003 CDR and the Vista DVD is all I need to do the job.  Won't work for all, but it will work for some, and that is why I took the time to write it up.

That being said, your comments about the zeroed NT Signature messing up the Vista boot process, or using BCDedit to fix Vista so it doesn't care seem to nicely summarize the situation. I was starting to gain an appreciation for some of this after reading earlier posts in this thread and in the threads that Brian referenced in reply #123 above. And, it appears that the MBR reference you provide is excellent.  The proposed test is intriguing.  I will have to dig into that for the challenge and learning experience, if nothing else.

But, for now, I feel that my original question about the viability of using Ghost 2003 images to backup and restore a Vista system is answered – "You Bet – just keep your Vista installation disc handy!"

Ken

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by NightOwl on Nov 7th, 2007 at 7:08pm
k4kjf


Quote:
Guess I don't see it that way!

Didn't mean to imply that your solution wasn't a *good* one--it is--and it was good to see that the *repair* process using the Vista installation CD not only works, but apparently Vista gives you a message as to what needs to be done to do the repair!

Just out of curiosity, do you have to enter an *Administrator* name and *password* to get access to that repair process?  I think WinXP's Recovery Console requires that for access to its use!

What I meant by:


Quote:
I think your hope of reducing the *failure* of restoring and having a successful bootable Vista OS was doomed from the start--at least without having to do a *repair* of the boot process!

was that you were not going to get a bootable OS without additional steps--be it the repair process, possibly using MBRWizard to edit back in the original NT signature,--or if you use the Ghost *-fdsp* switch to begin with, or the *bcedit* changes--that would eliminate the added repair step or MBR editing!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by k4kjf on Nov 8th, 2007 at 1:56pm

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, do you have to enter an *Administrator* name and *password* to get access to that repair process?  I think WinXP's Recovery Console requires that for access to its use!

No, entry of a userid or password is not required. You just select "Repair my computer", and it spends a few seconds "looking for your operating system", then offers a small dialog box that has a "Repair and Restart" button.  Click it and in 5 sec the system will start a successfully reboot.  I never hear the installation disc spin up at that point, so it apparently has already loaded all it needs to complete the repair.  (Although I never timed it, it takes maybe a minute from the time you start the boot off the Vista installation DVD to get to the "Select Language" screen with the "Repair my Computer" target.) The product key is not required either.  


Quote:
...was that you were not going to get a bootable OS without additional steps--be it the repair process, possibly using MBRWizard to edit back in the original NT signature,--or if you use the Ghost *-fdsp* switch to begin with, or the *bcedit* changes--that would eliminate the added repair step or MBR editing!

Yes, I agree with all that, and it WOULD be nice not to have to do the Repair step!

Ken

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by maxdido on Nov 14th, 2007 at 12:27pm
hi,


perhaps a solution for those who work with ghost 8.2?
what I did was the following.
install ghost solution suite 2
do a liveupdate
copy ghost32.exe (version 11.0.1 vista compatible) and renamed it to restoreghost.exe
inserted it with ultraiso to my ghost9 (which had ghost 8.2) bootable cd (because this cd supports my sil3114 raid chip) and now i can backup my vista without using any switches or what ever.
it just works.

max.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by k4kjf on Dec 17th, 2007 at 9:12am
Just a follow-up to previous postings regarding activation:  Previous postings had been related to a Vista system that was less than 30 days old and had not yet been activated.

Since that time I have activated the system (some time back already) and two days ago decided to upgrade that system to use a 320 GB hard drive instead of the original 160 GB drive.  

Bottom line report is that the Vista system partition restore worked again, this time with a slight twist, and that re-activation was not required. Details follow:

Just for kicks, I tried restoring an old, pre-activation Ghost 2003 image to the new 320 GB drive.  The restore worked, but of course on reboot, Vista reported that it needed to be activated, and that it was operating at reduced functionality so that I could purchase a license on-line if I so desired. Of course this was expected and I didn't go any further, but I had just wanted to see how the system would act.

Then I made a new, up-to-date Ghost 2003 image of the now-activated Vista system running on the old 160 GB drive. (FYI, my system partition is now 22 GB and the resulting image at high compression was around 10 GB.)  I saved the image to another partition on the 160 GB drive, then after rebooting, I copied the image to a 2nd networked computer.

Installed only the 320 GB (new, out-of-box) drive, booted from the Ghost 9.0 CDR, installed network support, and because I knew I'd need it later, used the 9.0 "Rewrite MBR" utility on the new drive. Then after mapping a drive letter to the networked machine where the new image was waiting, I used the "Restore Legacy Ghost Image" utility to restore the image to the new 320 GB drive over the network. Took about 25 min.

A slight twist this time on reboot.  I DID NOT immediately received the expected "missing winload.exe" message which from past experience I knew I could fix using the REPAIR option from the Vista installation DVD. Instead I received a message stating: "A disk read error occurred.  Press CTRL-ALT-DEL to restart." I tried CTRL-ALT-DEL a few times, but no joy.  I vaguely recalled seeing this once before, could not recall the exact circumstance, but I had fixed it by rewriting the MBR using gdisk found in the support folder of the Ghost 2003 CDROM.  Well….. this time I'd already done that before restoring the image using the Ghost 9.0 utility to accomplish the same thing. ???

But, just to be sure, I rewrote the MBR again, this time using the gdisk utility from the Ghost 2003 CD-ROM.  Success!  :) On reboot, the familiar "missing winload.exe" screen appeared instead of the complaint about a disk read error, and I knew my way home from there. I ran the repair from the Vista installation DVD and all was well.  On reboot, it came up to the desktop then immediately asked to be rebooted again, and after that it was solid.

I've been using the system heavily for two days now and all is fine running on the new 320 GB drive. Once again, using Ghost 2003 to accomplish the upgrade (and applying the required Repair from the Vista installation DVD) worked fine.

Note that the activation question never came up. Vista apparently decided that my changing JUST the hard drive on my system was not sufficient cause to require re-activation.

I recall reading that an example situation where re-activation would be required would be where TWO major components were changed at the same time, for example the hard drive AND RAM. Seems like a sane approach to me.  Some time I'd like to try changing JUST the motherboard to see what that might do to activation.

So – Why did I have to do the 2nd "rewrite MBR" operation? Not sure…. Maybe you have to do it AFTER the image is restored?  Maybe the utility to accomplish it is different as furnished on the Ghost 2003 CD-ROM vs. the Ghost 9.0 disc?

Anyway, I continued to gain confidence in using Ghost 2003 to make and restore Vista system partition images. You just have to accept the added steps of re-writing the MBR (probably only on new and wiped drives) and doing a REPAIR from the Vista installation DVD.

BTW - this is an OEM, Vista Home Premium installation.

Sorry the post got so long! Hope it is helpful to someone.

Ken

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by NightOwl on Dec 17th, 2007 at 10:16am
k4kjf

Good report--thanks for the on-going information!

As long as you are *testing*, why not try the previously mentioned Ghost switch to preserve the NT ID, or the BCDEdit technique so as to avoid the extra *fix* workarounds?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by frj11 on Feb 25th, 2008 at 9:38am
All,

I am not sure where to start this post as my reading of the dates seems skewed.  I have been able to back up both Vista 64 Ultimate and Vista 32 Business editions.  The restored images work well and seem completely error free.  I used a partition back up because I do not have a disk with but a single partition on it.  Well I do but it’s a 6 Gb ATA drive and that drive has Linux on it.  Which by the by can also be backed up using Ghost 2003.

I hope this helps,

Rick    :)


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Ghost4me on Feb 25th, 2008 at 1:23pm

frj11 wrote on Feb 25th, 2008 at 9:38am:
I have been able to back up both Vista 64 Ultimate and Vista 32 Business editions.  The restored images work well and seem completely error free.


You restored to the same hard drive?  Have you restored the Ghost 2003 backup to a different, that is a new/blank/unformatted (retail box) hard drive?  (that would be the case if your hard drive died.)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by frj11 on Feb 25th, 2008 at 1:56pm

John. wrote on Feb 25th, 2008 at 1:23pm:

frj11 wrote on Feb 25th, 2008 at 9:38am:
I have been able to back up both Vista 64 Ultimate and Vista 32 Business editions.  The restored images work well and seem completely error free.


You restored to the same hard drive?  Have you restored the Ghost 2003 backup to a different, that is a new/blank/unformatted (retail box) hard drive?  (that would be the case if your hard drive died.)


Yes i have.  From time to time i have to re-authorize which is fairly easily done.   :)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by TheShadow on Feb 27th, 2008 at 10:37am
About the time that this thread was started, I installed Vista Ult. Beta on a brand new PC that I had just built.  It worked OK.

Now, being a huge Ghost fan, don't you just know that using Ghost on Vista was one of my first things to try.  Good ol' Ghost 2003, build 793 worked fine.  Also Ghost 8.3, build 1331 worked without any problem.  I said so right here in this forum, but I guess not in this particular thread.

The answer is still the same.....now with Vista Ultimate full retail version.
Ghost 2003 and Ghost 8.3 just WORK.  
After all, Ghost doesn't give a hoot what the data actually is.  
It backs up ones and zeros .... files and folders, even on an NTFS partition.  

I see this thread has gone to 10 pages. ???  The question could have been answered on page one.
Case closed!

Ghost 2003 works great on Vista.
I'm still using the same boot floppy I used on Win-98 and revised to work with XP.

Shadow  8-)

PS: I recently restored a Ghost Image file to a new hard drive that had not been pre-formatted.
It wouldn't boot.  I booted up with my Windows ME utilities disk and ran FDISK /mbr and that fixed the problem.  From then on, the disk booted just fine.
I say this because I know this problem has come up, over and over.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by NightOwl on Mar 1st, 2008 at 11:20pm
TheShadow


Quote:
The answer is still the same.....now with Vista Ultimate full retail version.
Ghost 2003 and Ghost 8.3 just WORK.

Very interesting report!  

I know from your previous posts that you always (?) use FAT32 rather than NTFS partitions.  

Is that true of your Vista installation?

Did you pre-partition and format the Vista partition using Fdisk or other DOS partitioning tool--(I doubt the Vista installation disc would offer you the option of FAT32--maybe it does, but at some minimum size like WinXP does?).

If you install Vista to a FAT32 partition, I wonder if that alters Vista's default setup and behavior that has, for many, prevented Ghost 2003 from working properly--at least not without some sort of adjustments!

I wonder if installing to a FAT32 partition prevents Vista from using its new boot files, the Boot Configuration Data (BCD), that previous posts indicated needed to be edited using the *BCDEdit.exe* data editor to make Vista act more like WinXP when the Disk ID has be altered.

Because, Ghost 2003's default behavior is to zero the Disk ID--and Vista's boot sequence faltered if that happens--unless the BCD settings where adjusted.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by TheShadow on Mar 4th, 2008 at 9:59am
Vista will NOT install on a FAT-32 formatted partition.
If you're installing Vista as an upgrade over XP, the partition must be in NTFS, or converted to NTFS before Vista will install.  That's just the way it works.

Doing a backup and restore as a DISK image and not a partition image, negates the problem of the mbr being screwed up.  Doing a partition image restore to a new HD, does require that you run FDISK from a DOS boot disk of some type, and run "FDISK /mbr" to fix the boot sector.  Then Vista will boot OK.  This was the same problem I found in XP.
It's been well documented here in this forum.

The simplest fix for me was to just format the new hard drive first, making the partitions I wanted, and formatting the HD in DOS, before restoring the old drive image with Ghost.
Besides the obvious thing, of getting my new HD partitioned, it also exercises the HD and verifies that it's working perfectly, before you install the OS, Disk Image, etc.

Just a bit of HD trivia.

The Shadow  8-)


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by NightOwl on Mar 4th, 2008 at 10:14am
TheShadow


Quote:
Vista will NOT install on a FAT-32 formatted partition.

Okay--so it's not the partition file system of FAT32 vs NTFS!


Quote:
The simplest fix for me was to just format the new hard drive first, making the partitions I wanted, and formatting the HD in DOS

But, it appears that the Master Boot Partition (MBR) that you initially create is an older DOS MBR because you are using Fdisk, and not the new Vista MBR--so I must speculate that that's the variable that might be rendering the need to run Ghost with the *-fdsp* switch, or to do the *bcedit* edit changes unnecessary in your situation...Hmmm--I don't know!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by lunadesign on May 25th, 2008 at 1:54pm
I'm coming in very late on this but after reading 150 posts, I was hoping to find some sort of summary or FAQ of what we've all discovered wrt to Ghost 2003 and Vista.

If I read everything here correctly, it seems that Ghost 2003 works with Vista in some cases but restoring to a fresh disk requires some messing around with BCD and Vista repair mode.  But it seems there's no definitive, deterministic list of cases that work/don't work and steps to carry out.

If its really this complicated, is there any reason why I shouldn't plunk down $200 and buy Ghost Solution Suite 2.5 to get Ghost 11.5?  (I prefer to stay with a cold-imaging product for various reasons.)  Yes, I know its spendy, but its certainly cheaper than spending a bunch of hours messing around with Ghost 2003 and apparently Ghost 11.x works cleanly with no muss or fuss.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.  :)


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Brian on May 25th, 2008 at 3:54pm
lunadesign,

One of our members, TheShadow, has created numerous Vista images with Ghost 2003. Despite requests, we are still waiting to hear about the success or otherwise of restoring Vista images with Ghost 2003.

TheShadow, how about some details?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Rama on May 25th, 2008 at 7:12pm

lunadesign wrote on May 25th, 2008 at 1:54pm:
If its really this complicated, is there any reason why I shouldn't plunk down $200 and buy Ghost Solution Suite 2.5 to get Ghost 11.5?  (I prefer to stay with a cold-imaging product for various reasons.)  Yes, I know its spendy, but its certainly cheaper than spending a bunch of hours messing around with Ghost 2003 and apparently Ghost 11.x works cleanly with no muss or fuss.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.  :)


About a year ago, I also did the same thing. Went ahead and purchased five licenses of GSS 11.0.1 for about $160, which is a discounted price I got on-line from Best Buy Business is a very good deal for what it offers. Both DOS and Windows versions of Ghost. Gdisk and others included in the product. Once you get the license, you will download the program from Symantec.

GSS 11.5 has just been released and I would wait for some months before purchasing it unless you are in a great hurry. By that time all the bugs in the system would have been fixed. Eventhough it is a solid product, I would wait for the next upgrade.

Probably in the interim, you may want to use 2003 or 8.2.

Rama  ;D

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by TheShadow on Jun 12th, 2008 at 11:05pm
A request for feedback......  ok

I've been making Ghost 2003 and 8.3 backups of my Vista HD since installing Vista many months ago.
So far, I've had no problem doing it.  It's exactly like backing up XP, 98 or any other OS.  
Ghost 2003 (for instance) seems oblivious to what OS you're using.
It sees a bit and it copies a bit.  No big deal!

Vista is run on an NTFS formatted drive just like XP (usually) so I don't see the big problem.

NO, I've not had any reason to do a Restore to a new HD with Vista.
I'll do it to a blank HD if it will make y'all happy. ::)
But surely, I'm not the only one who could do that. (Ya think? )

EDIT: Aug 30, 2008
Indeed, Ghost 2003, 8.3 and 11.0 will make a Ghost Image of a Vista HD, but the joy stops there.  The restored image will not boot the system.
BUT, the Image made from Ghost 11.5 either the DOS or Windows version (Ghost32.exe) will restore OK.  The cloning operation works too.

But, just like with XP, I'm sure I'd have to do a Disk to Image first, unlike the Partition to Image that I normally do, if I expect the new drive to be bootable.
Nigel explained to us why you can't do a restore of a partition image to a blank HD and expect it to boot properly.  I seem to remember it had something to do with Ghost not copying all the boot sector when it does a Partition to Image backup.  
  I've always gotten around that myself by partitioning all my new drives with FDISK before restoring a Ghost partition image to it.  That seems to take care of the boot sector (MBR) problem.
Success is in the details, I guess. :-[

But then, the only HD in my house formatted NTFS, is the one with Vista on it.  The rest are all formatted as FAT-32.   XP loves it!
But Vista will only install on an NTFS formatted drive.  Big Bummer!

I hope all yous guys have a great Father's Day.
The Shadow  8-)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by wp on Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:54pm
Vista disk to image backup over network.

I just now sucessfully finished peer to peer backup tcp/ip G 8.3.

I booted from floppy boot disks made with g 8.3 boot wizard with ndis2 dos driver added.  Source computer was sony laptop vgn-nr110e with Yukon nic.

Target was celeron desktop booted with floppies made with G 8.3 boot wizard multicard template.  Target computer has ide hard drive.

I previously tried to do this backup with G 2003, but G3 halted and asked question 1824 image file already exists.  overwrite ? I answered yes first three times it asked, then I quit and went with G 8.3 as described above.

Does anyone have Ghost error message List ( G 3 and-or G 8.3 ?

best regards

alan

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by TheShadow on Jun 23rd, 2008 at 8:43am
So, I guess no-one was willing to play around with Vista and Ghost 2003 to see what can be done with it.

I was given a Dell XPS 400 computer that Dell told the user, was broke.
They didn't even want it back, so he gave it to me.  It ain't broke! It's just another Dell! >:(
I've totally re-configured it to boot from a single SATA2 HD instead of the RAID setup that Dell had installed in it.  I've added a DVD burner and a floppy drive and it's even beginning to look and act like a real computer.  I also had to replace the 80 conductor data cable to the DVD-rom drive (with a standard 40 conductor cable ) when I added a DVD-RW, to get them to work right. D'Hell strikes again! >:( ;)

Well, I just did a restore of a Ghost 2003 Partition Image to a blank HD and it would not boot.  But we've already discussed the "Why" of that, right?
A Partition Image does not contain all of the boot sector information.  Only a DISK Image does that.  I believe that Nigel explained that to us previously.

So now, before I close this post, I'm going to do a disk to disk copy (clone) with Ghost 2003 and see if that works.

To do a disk to Image requires TWO hard drives, , , then to restore the Image to a blank disk, requires a third HD.
I'm still trying to decide if I want to suffer three HD's to this one exercise.

This is going to take a while.  I'll come back later. ;)

Shadow  8-)


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by TheShadow on Jun 23rd, 2008 at 12:36pm
A word to the wise....... ::)

When using different drives in different configurations and using Ghost, don't do it on a Dell with a RAID bios.  It's a killer! :(

I finally just had to walk away from it. >:(
What a miserable P.O.C.!!

My first attempt resulted in erasing my Vista drive.
My second attempt, making a Ghost image to a DVD and then restoring to a blank drive, resulted in files missing in the restored drive.  The Vista Install disk fixed that problem.

I did a disk to disk (clone) operation from a 160 gig Maxtor to a 80 gig WD which seemed to work.  I used Ghost 8.3.

I attribute most of my problems to the weird Dell bios.  There is absolutely NO way to just totally shut off RAID completely.
I wish I could find a non-raid bios for this mobo.

I still have to try Ghost 11 and see how that works.

I'm glad I hadn't planned on going anywhere today. :-?

Shadow  8-)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by John. on Jun 23rd, 2008 at 12:49pm

TheShadow wrote on Jun 23rd, 2008 at 12:36pm:
I still have to try Ghost 11 and see how that works.


Ghost 12 and Ghost 14 are the two consumer versions that are certified for Vista.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by Brian on Jun 23rd, 2008 at 3:21pm

TheShadow wrote on Jun 23rd, 2008 at 8:43am:
Well, I just did a restore of a Ghost 2003 Partition Image to a blank HD and it would not boot.But we've already discussed the "Why" of that, right?
A Partition Image does not contain all of the boot sector information.Only a DISK Image does that.

There is a long thread on how to restore a Ghost 2003 partition image to a blank HD. If anyone is interested, I'll find it. A disk image isn't needed to make the HD boot.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by TheShadow on Jun 23rd, 2008 at 4:28pm
I think I fixed that once, on a FAT-32 drive by just running FDISK /mbr
on it.  That fixed the boot record and then the restored image (XP-Pro) booted just fine.  If memory serves......

I'm still working with Vista and this #%@$^&! Dell.
I think it's time to break out the C-4. ;)

8-)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by TheShadow on Jun 29th, 2008 at 9:52am
On the Flip-Side.....

This thread started with the following phrase:


Quote:
Now that Windows Vista has been released, do we know if Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 is compatible?  If not compatible, are there known work-around solutions to identified problems?


Anyone who knows me, knows that I like FREE.  FREE is GOOD!

Working to find a solution to the cloning Vista HD's problem, I came up with something that's been laying right here all the time.  The "MaxBlast" CD that came with all my Seagate or Maxtor hard drives. (Ver. 5)

I installed "Maxblast" into Windows and then used it to make a Maxblast bootable CD.
Then I booted up my Vista system that has two Maxtor SATA2 HD's in it, using that boot CD.
They happen to be Maxtor drives, but I don't think that really makes any difference.
Working thru the easy to read menus, I selected to back up C: to D:.
It didn't take long at all, and when the process was done, I shut down the PC, connected the newly made clone as the primary drive and booted the system.  It booted just fine.

Vista must have sensed that it was on a different drive because it did load some new drivers and then asked me to reboot.  No problem,,, after the reboot everything was running normally.

This whole process took less than a half hour and was actually pretty simple.  That Maxblast bootable CD is now a valuable part of my service KIT.  

I know it's not Ghost, but it's FREE and it works real GOOD!
I do love Ghost, but hey, we're not married!!! ;) ;D ;D ;D

The thing that really bugs me is that I've had dozens of those Maxblast CD's laying around for a very long time and I didn't realize just how valuable they could be.  But, now I know.
Knowledge is POWER !! ;)

Y'all have a great day now, Y'hear?
The Shadow  8-)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by rooster on Aug 29th, 2008 at 11:31pm
Hi,
I am a newcomer to the RAD GHOST forum.
I've been using the enterprise ghost7.0 thru DOS disk for many years. Through the ingenious RAD GHOST GUIDE, fantastic site!

You all must be more expert than the experts by now, as after reading your posts, they are very much more detailed than I doubt even Symantec or Norton have as product documentation.

To the point:
I am about to move to win xp with sp2, I have the following 2 Ghost versions in hand.
GHOST 7.0 (Enterprise - using present from DOS boot disk I created on my win98se myself, by formatting a floppy with system files checked then recopying the ghost.exe and files to it)

GHOST 9.0 (THROUGH NORTON SYSTEM WORKS CD)

SYMANTEC GHOST SUITE 8.2 (ENTERPRISE, NO KEYGEN CAME WITH IT)

Can I use Ghost 7.0 or any other of these to make a DOS disk for my new xp pc and how?
Or would it be better to buy GHOST2003, (in which case may I ask if any of you have one for sale?)

Can I boot to DOS before going into XP, to use any of the above 3 softwares?

Sorry for silly the questions, but I needed to ask the pros, and in my experience, RAD's word si like gold!

Thanks so much!
Ro Ghandhi
Montreal Canada
rghandhi@sympatico.ca




Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by TheShadow on Aug 30th, 2008 at 8:15am
Symantec no longer sells Ghost 2003, and that's regrettable, because Ghost 2003, Build 793 works beautifully with Windows XP (all versions and SP's) and every motherboard that I've been able to try it on.

Due to the fact that Symantec will no longer sell or support Ghost 2003, some people have declared it "Abandonware" and have put it on their websites as such for download.

I checked the offering on one of those sites, just out of curiosity, and found it to be Ghost 2003, but an older build that would not work on the newer motherboards.
Any Ghost version after 2003, build 793, will work fine for XP on most motherboards.
Ghost 11.5 works fine for Windows Vista.

I remain adamant that installing the Ghost GUI on your HD is redundant (not required) as the Ghost.exe file runs great from any boot media.
(floppy disk, Flash Drive or CD)

AND, you'll need it on removable media if your HD crashes and has to be replaced or reformatted.  You'll also need the Ghost Image files somewhere other than on your HD that just crashed.

After having a problem with the "Defraggler" defragmenting program rendering my C: drive UN-Bootable, I'm now making Ghost backups to DVD once a week at the very minimum.
Those DVD's will be self-booting ONLY if I run Ghost from a floppy disk in A:.  

That "Defraggler" program damaged my C: drive so badly that even doing a restore of a Ghost Partition Image would not fix it.  Likewise FDISK /mbr could not fix it.  Partition Magic 8, would only declare the drive as "BAD".
I guess the Partition Table was trashed.

I did a Ghost restore to a new HD from a DVD backup disk and I'm keeping that old drive as a source of bits and pieces that I might need.


Y'all have a great day now, Y'hear?
The Shadow  8-)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by moocha on Feb 22nd, 2009 at 3:15pm
I have an HP laptop DV7 cto1000 2ghz core 2 duo.  I used 2003 to back up and restore Vista and XP , no probs.  Except little things like up and down arrows etc.  Whew that was good news.  The image resided on same HD as Vista as I wasn't that worried about it.  I have XP installed on another HD in this machine with music vstis etc.  

My previous latop: DV 9410 amd cpu, would only work with 8.2 .  Both vista and xp in a dual boot were ghosted. I was happy just to be able to ghost them.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by decombs on Mar 12th, 2009 at 11:28am
I successfully used Easy CD Creator 9.1 LE to make a boot disk that works fine with my older computers that use PS2 devices. However, the disk does not work with my newer Intel DP35DP motherboard equipped computer. The board has no PS2 sockets/plugs.

It freezes at the A: prompt. I figured this was due to the lack of USB drivers for the newer USB (only) input devices, a MS USB Basic mouse and a Natural 4000 USB keyboard.

I copied the drivers WinXP says it uses (I got the info from the Hardware/Device tab in the Control Panel) to the Bootable CD Project folder and am now stuck on what files to include with a new Image and how to have those drivers load instead of the older PS2 versions.

Also, I can't seem to discern what version of Ghost 2003 I have other than its size is 1,024,016 bytes. Can anyone tell me what version I have, please?   :)

I intend to update to Vista soon and want to be able to save an initial install image to a spare partition ... and naturally be able to restore it should I need to. The only other option is to use Ghost 14, which I have, and install it after Vista, but I'd rather have a simple file from Gho_03 if possible.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by TheShadow on Mar 14th, 2009 at 8:53am
We've discussed this extensively in the forum, but I see you're new, so you probably have NOT read other threads.  It's always a good idea to do that before asking questions.

First, Ghost 2003 (any version/build) is not normally compatible with Vista.
I say "Normally" because there is a somewhat complicated work-around that's also been written up in this forum.

But, to find out what build your Ghost 2003 is, just run it in DOS, from your boot disk and run it like this:
Ghost /ver
(be sure to leave the space ahead of the /ver)
What you need is Ghost 2003 with a build # of at least 793.

Then make sure all "USB Legacy" setting are turned ON in your bios.
Adding mouse.com to your Ghost boot disk will also make running Ghost in DOS a whole lot easier.

The oldest version of Ghost that will work generically with Vista is Ghost 11.5.  

We've  also discussed extensively, in either this or another thread, alternative programs for backing up Vista.

Good Luck,
Shadow  8-)


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by proximityinfo3 on Jul 17th, 2010 at 12:31am
I do not believe that Ghost 9/Ghost 10 is compatible with Windows Vista.  Symantec is scheduled to release Ghost 12 in late April, 2007 for this need.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by proximityinfo3 on Jul 17th, 2010 at 5:30am
That being said, your comments about the zeroed NT Signature messing up the Vista boot process, or using BCDedit to fix Vista so it doesn't care seem to nicely summarize the situation. I was starting to gain an appreciation for some of this after reading earlier posts in this thread and in the threads that Brian referenced in reply #123 above.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by HellsBells on Jun 14th, 2011 at 9:42am
hi there ............ i do have a leagal version Ghost 2003.789 but installed on Win 7..... how can i get a update installed to Build Ghost Version 2003.793......... the Updater allways say I have the latest Version of ghost installed which is defently not correct


Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by NightOwl on Jun 14th, 2011 at 11:02am
@ HellsBells

Christer posted a solution here:  Latest version of Ghost 2003 downloadable from Symantec on Feb 1, 08

Symantec's Live Update does not update its own Live Update!  If you do not have the option of selecting the Symantec *Archive Server* during the update process, you need to manually update Live Update:  How to obtain the programs updates that are archived on Symantec LiveUpdate server

Let us know if that helps.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista
Post by HellsBells on Jun 16th, 2011 at 11:30am
hi the problem solved finally . thanks for ur support
i hope this link will help others http://community.norton.com/t5/Other-Norton-Products/I-need-HELP-on-Norton-Ghost-2003-Update-build-789-to-build-793/td-p/472632

kind regarde hellsbells

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