Hi Folks
I have created a user guide to create One step recovery guide which would be similar to IBM and Dell recovery software using Ghost in DOS mode.

The manual doesn't fit in this text column hence i have uploaded it to {URL Deleted}.

I would request the administrator to provide some space on the forum where i can upload the document explaining the process.

I have few doubts and queries myself which are mentioned in the document. Please find time and see if you can solve them up. This would be good to for the community.

As far as Symantec is concerned, i guess they been too lazy to write a decent manual explaining the whole process. I wonder why?

The link to the doument in PDF format is
{URL Deleted}
http://www.esnips.com/web/kaviteshsingh/

Updated the URL with the trial version screenshots.


Feel free to contact me in case you find any mistakes in the manual or if you have other alternate file hosting servers.

Regards
K Singh.

EDIT:  URLs in this post have been deleted by Pleonasm (20 MAY 2008)

Just so we're absolutely clear, where you link to the installer on the esdownload site and say to just extract the software:

Doing this and running Ghost from that archive is in fact illegal. It's piracy. You must have a purchased license for that version of Ghost to legally use it.

I'd be happy to explain more about how to use the tools, but as a Symantec employee it's not at all appropriate to assist with something which instructs people to pirate the software instead of legally buying it.

I do realise that arguing against piracy on the internet is a Quixotic exercise, and I have nothing against Rad and the technical community here, but honestly, this still makes me really sad.

Hi

I have updated the Document where i link it to the download site. Since i ran the 30-day trial and finished my testing, it was my obligation that i write and give back to this community what i learnt in the process.

As far as piracy is concerned debate is a never ending. Just imagine, i would like to buy the simple ghost executable without all the flings one get in Norton Ghost 14. Because my requirement is just to recreate one backup and restore whenever i want.

The ghost solution which does this work, comes for enterprise. But anyways I am not using nor buying it cauz there are free tools available which can do the job, if not better than Ghost.

I appreciate your help you have provided earlier and hope that you would look into the questions which i had posted on the manual. I would help ease the troubles other people may face.

Regards,
K Singh.


wrote on May 19^th, 2008 at 5:42pm:

Just so we're absolutely clear, where you link to the installer on the esdownload site and say to just extract the software: Doing this and running Ghost from that archive is in fact illegal. It's piracy. You must have a purchased license for that version of Ghost to legally use it. I'd be happy to explain more about how to use the tools, but as a Symantec employee it's not at all appropriate to assist with something which instructs people to pirate the software instead of legally buying it. I do realise that arguing against piracy on the internet is a Quixotic exercise, and I have nothing against Rad and the technical community here, but honestly, this still makes me really sad.

Nigel, based upon your comments, I have deleted the URLs provided by Kavitesh Singh, to avoid supporting activity that in any way may be inappropriate.

Kavitesh, I understand that your intentions to help other users are noble, but I also trust that you understand this decision to edit your initial post in this thread.

Though i dont challenge the decision of moderators of deleting the URL linked to manual, i have updated the manual removing the links.

If i had any intentions of encouraging piracy of the software, i would not have updated the document immediately upon Nigel's comment.

People who have bought this software would find the manual very useful since symantec never bothered to write about the feature which was present but not widely publicized. The feature is available to all the users with a recovery manual but lacked critical details of implementation.

I am not here to argue over any decisions made by forum moderators but would still request them as well as Nigel to go through manual once again and see if the part which caused this issue has been removed or not.

Incase, still any of the you find its not useful, i chose not to pursue this further.
In case any person on the community would like my assistance over this issue i would be glad to help them. I hope i am allowed to do so.

And clearly i try out softwares for learning purpose. I have made an evaluation request to Acronis and paragon as well to check out there one step recovery. But that is a different story.

When i installed this software, it told me it was 30-day trial with 5 user license. I accepted it and uninstalled after testing. But lets not drag it too long.

I rest the decision to the community.

Thanks.





Pleonasm wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 8:13am:

Nigel, based upon your comments, I have deleted the URLs provided by Kavitesh Singh, to avoid supporting activity that in any way may be inappropriate. Kavitesh, I understand that your intentions to help other users are noble, but I also trust that you understand this decision to edit your initial post in this thread.

Kavitesh, I did not realize that you edited the PDF in an attempt to correct the problem.  Perhaps you could send a copy of the PDF to Nigel (through a “private message” on this forum) and – if he is will willing to review the document and if his concerns have been addressed – then the URL link to your PDF could again be added to this thread.

Thank you for your understanding and for your cooperation.

To date the ghost.exe version 7.5 and 8 are still the best Recovery method for OEM .
I explained on 911cd forum (ghost bootable Cd ) 3 or 4 years ago
when  i was still in IT  how to
use it with Bootable Cd/DVD or from a hidden partition
using IBM bootMGR pressing F10 or F11 on power up

at present PC Angle LE seem to be what HP and some others use
on 60% of World PCs .

it is a shame because Ghost was and is still the  best , when others let you down , ghost.exe (630KB !!!) saves the day in DOS mode!!

If you wrote that software you must be congratulated
I do not think any body can write small But powerful software like  
that any more.

regards Ben
:)

Pleonasm wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 8:13am:

to avoid supporting activity that in any way may be inappropriate.

Actually, this isn't even the worst; there were about four links provided to illegal copies on Ghost here in the last few weeks - the worst and most blatant being this thread, in which "somms" links in his personal signature to a download which is illegal for anyone without a full license to 2.5 - it's been reported to the esdownload folks who I understand will make that particular one go away, but that one's the one to kill because that kind of direct link represents a more serious legal problem for Rad.

That's, by the way, the most serious concern; what folks need to bear in mind is that if you want to encourage others to do illegal things, you should do it on your own website and not on equipment run and paid for by Rad, because this kind of thing puts him in harm's way (both for direct legal liability, but also for subpoenas for website logs and such). It's disrespectful to him and to the members of the community here to endanger him and the community itself that way.

By the way, I personally wouldn't link to a Win9x or MSDOS boot disk either, not when FreeDOS exists and *is* legal.

Just so it's clear, posting a direct link even to the trialware isn't ethical - you needed to register with Symantec and go through a license agreement to get the trialware and when you register to download it you are provided by e-mail a license key. It's not legal to use any component of those downloads without going through that trialware licensing process - full stop, end of story, no debate.

Nigel it seems you have not taken considerable time to go through the manual and have been jumping to conclusions.

Saying that i have been linking to Win98 or MS-DOS, just check out the link wwww.bootdisk.com which gives the images which ship with the Win98 setup etc. They dont provide nor endorse in selling DOS or Win98 setups.

And for your kind information, i had installed Free DOS as well for this purpose, but guess what GHOST crashes in that one.
When i run sys C: command it copies bare minimum files to boot the system and doesnt install the setup of win98 or DOS.

It turns out you are in no mood to look into the good part of the manual. But lets bring it all to an end.

We have no further correspondence or argument on this issue. Should any of the community member wants my inputs on the functionality i tested, i would surely help them out.

Pointing to people and saying they are encouraging piracy by adding links to downloads, I ask simple question to you and Symantec. Why did they not block that link when the software is licensed and let anyone download for free. Are they not themselves encouraging it. Think about it and you would understand.

Have a nice day.. And as said no more questions and answers.



wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 8:33pm:

Pleonasm wrote on May 20th, 2008 at 8:13am: to avoid supporting activity that in any way may be inappropriate. Actually, this isn't even the worst; there were about four links provided to illegal copies on Ghost here in the last few weeks - the worst and most blatant being this thread, in which "somms" links in his personal signature to a download which is illegal for anyone without a full license to 2.5 - it's been reported to the esdownload folks who I understand will make that particular one go away, but that one's the one to kill because that kind of direct link represents a more serious legal problem for Rad. That's, by the way, the most serious concern; what folks need to bear in mind is that if you want to encourage others to do illegal things, you should do it on your own website and not on equipment run and paid for by Rad, because this kind of thing puts him in harm's way (both for direct legal liability, but also for subpoenas for website logs and such). It's disrespectful to him and to the members of the community here to endanger him and the community itself that way. By the way, I personally wouldn't link to a Win9x or MSDOS boot disk either, not when FreeDOS exists and *is* legal. Just so it's clear, posting a direct link even to the trialware isn't ethical - you needed to register with Symantec and go through a license agreement to get the trialware and when you register to download it you are provided by e-mail a license key. It's not legal to use any component of those downloads without going through that trialware licensing process - full stop, end of story, no debate.

ben_mott wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 3:55pm:

I do not think any body can write small But powerful software like that any more

Actually, most of the bloat introduced since then is a consequence of some design decisions made by the same developers of the edition you like so much; the original Ghost codebase was largely pure C, written by purely self-taught developers, with some serious consequent maintainability problems.

The original Ghost was small, but it wasn't designed to be flexible or maintainable - and the folks working on it then swung the pendulum too far the other way by using C++ as a technological "fix", but since they were again learning it largely as they went, they made a number of design mistakes (which, by the way, were mostly pointed out to them at the time) which are responsible for almost all of the growth in the executable size. The newer Ghost versions doesn't have the maintenance problems in the source code that the old one did, but in solving that problem they traded away the ability to make the code small. It's a shame, but overall I think it was still a reasonable tradeoff to make since the things the newer code needs to do are things that would have been effectively impossible to write if Ghost had continued as it was in 7.5/8.0

Writing small code is, as you say, largely a lost art but that's largely a natural thing; writing truly small code requires a great deal of intellectual effort (and quite a bit of time, which equates to money) to do it in a way that doesn't compromise the system's ability to grow and change. It's comparatively easy to write small code to do a small thing, if you don't have to keep adapting it and extending it for over decades - by which stage it's generally no longer attempting to solve a small problem any more!

The people with the kind of talent required to do this are rare in the first place, and in the modern educational environment for students of the engineering arts, the right techniques are rarely taught, and further to that most developers simply don't improve that much over their careers. If you read Joel Spolsky's The Perils of JavaSchools you might get a flavour of the problem, but there is more to it than that: consider also Steve Yegge's (whose blog is top reading, by the way) Being the Averagest.

But to be fair, there's no real incentive for individuals or universities to do better unless you have a hankering to work for Google - they deserve real kudos, by the way, for making engineering talent seem like something worthwhile for engineers to attain and companies to seek, because few other software businesses even bother pretending that developer talent is anything other than an interchangeable, fungible thing. I have no idea whether the reality for most of their developers is particularly inspiring despite what Steve says, but even having that image of developers being important is a good thing in and of itself.

In general Ghost works fine with FreeDOS - QA does test that periodically, and I just ran a clone with it now using the release build from GSS2.5.

We know lots of businesses do use FreeDOS precisely because it is legal, and we definitely intend for Ghost to continue to run on FreeDOS. If a legitimate customer has a problem with Ghost on FreeDOS, report it via technical support or on the official forums and we'll look into it (but please, with some more detail than "it crashed" - we do run it ourselves so if it doesn't work for you then you've done something different to what we do, and figuring out what that difference is matters otherwise we can't reproduce the problem ourselves).

Actually, we'd have loved to have included FreeDOS with the base GSS2.5 distribution as well as PC-DOS, and we regularly discuss it; however, there are some pretty hideous legal and logistical options bundling it because it's something of a patchwork license-wise: see http://www.freedos.org/cgi-bin/lsm.cgi?mode=dir&dir=base just for the base OS, to say nothing of the other parts. Since it's not covered by a single license clearly permitting commercial distribution, for us to bundle it with the product is a compliance nightmare.

Nigel,
I've been an ardent admirer of Ghost and those who wrote it since first using it back in (about) 1997.  My boss at that time found a 30 day trial of Ghost on a web site and I simply fell in love with it.  I'd never seen anything like it, and haven't to this day.

I own Ghost 2003 and use the Ghost.exe file from it to make my own Ghost boot disks.  I found that a boot disk made with Windows ME is far superior to some of the alternatives.  
Is there any problem with me doing that for my own use?
I also own my copy of Windows ME.

thanks in advance,
The Shadow  8-)

TheShadow wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 6:09pm:

Is there any problem with me doing that for my own use?

Check the EULA for Ghost 2003 (I don't have a copy to hand). It has always been the case that a license for Ghost was intended for use with one machine per client license. That was always the basis on which it was sold, although the intent wasn't clear once lawyers got involved - the formal EULA unfortunately is written to deal with US Law and that tends to lead to a lot of obfuscation.

A single copy of Ghost 2003 is for use with a single machine. That's the overall intent. It's also a consumer product not intended for business use, so consumer law applies (and if you're a business, you shouldn't be using it and should be using one of the commercial editions).  It's what happens when machines come and go where this gets complicated.

In practice, what the EULA of the time probably didn't spell out (and remember, those things are written by lawyers, not human beings) was any rules or process for transferring those licenses. In fact, I think the new GSS2.5 EULA is the first time it's been specifically addressed in a clause, although the new EULA still fails to address all kinds of other processes.

This is complicated by quirks of law, some of which are unique to the US. In most countries, there are consumer-protection laws that are quite different from those governing commercial contracts, and each jurisdiction contains unique provisions, many of which don't have any real body of case-law built up for how they apply to software products (and some of which by virtue of being general consumer protections are treated as "rights" that override other laws and can be used to annul other arrangements).

The US in particular has this strange thing called the "First Sale Doctrine". How overarching pieces of legal doctrine like that which control the transfer of license between individuals might affect or be applied to the transfer of licenses from machine to machine I won't speculate, not being trained in U.S. law. Suffice to say it's murky.

Honestly, it's a mess for everyone. For your situation you would have to read the Ghost 2003 EULA and then match it up with the applicable body of consumer law.

Frankly, though, as long as you've been using it just as a home product, I wouldn't worry too much (assume good faith and all that). It's really only use of it for commercial operation that's really a problem, since Ghost 2003 is not and never was sold for commercial use - that's what the commercial editions were for.

Bear in mind that we no longer sell Ghost as a consumer product, only commercially. Different rules apply to commercial products.

What the current EULA says specifically is that once you use Ghost on a machine, that consumes a license until said machine is decommisioned, and decommision is defined in the EULA thus:

Quote:

17.2.2      Permanently Decommissioned is defined as physically deleting all software, including but not limited to, the Licensed Software and all operating systems, from the hard drive(s) of the Device so that the Device is no longer operable or used by You in any capacity.

Now, also bear in mind there exists and has existed for many, many years (back to the Binary days from memory although the contracts back then were probably more bespoke than off-the-rack) VAR licenses, which are different from the regular Ghost licenses. Under this licensing model, you can use ghosteom.exe with a machine for well under a dollar per machine. If you want to use Ghost commercially with multiple machines, this license type has been the right type to get if all you need is the basic disk imaging tool and not anything else in from the full commercial editions.

I never install Ghost on a PC.  Period.  With Ghost 2003, that's completely redundant.  "Ghost.exe", the real Ghost, runs best from a boot disk.

Since Symantec will not sell it or support it, that has led many to think of it as Abandonware.  I've seen it on many "Abandonware" sites.
If Symantec still claims to OWN it, then they should also support it with help and updates.  Isn't that only fair?  

It's my feeling and the feeling of millions of other PC users, that EULA's and licenses have gotten completely out of hand.  When a company no longer will support a piece of software, then it should be declared "Public Property" and open to use by anyone wanting to use it.
Likewise DOS and old versions of windows.
Every copyright should have a set timeout period.  Patents do!

Don't worry, you won't find me selling it on a street corner someplace, it's just my personal feelings on the matter.

Thanks for your expert reply.  I do appreciate it.
Cheers Mate!

The Shadow  8-)

You use it with a machine, that's what counts. Ghost is licensed code, you need to abide by the terms of the license agreement to use it. Full stop. You've put Ghost on a boot disk and run it, the reality, the legal substance, is precisely that you've "installed" it on that boot disk.


TheShadow wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 8:57pm:

Since Symantec will not sell it or support it

Untrue. Ghost is sold and supported in GSS2.x, and you can still buy it. You cannot buy the consumer 2003 version, that is all. If you wish to use current licenses with an older version of the code (i.e, "downgrade rights") I don't know off-hand whether there is a formal policy with respect to that, but for anyone acting in good faith it would be appropriate to do.

We don't sell the single-license consumer product, that is all. Claiming we don't sell or support Ghost is really just a way of saying you don't like the price of the corporate product without being man enough to actually admit that.

Hi Nigel,
I appreciate all you expert comment on whether be it, technical issues or licensing issue, I would like to point out that no harm is done if you be polite in replies to people on the community.

The last reply posted here to user " TheShadow" in my view has been rude especially the last line. I would request you to refrain from using language that is offensive or derogatory in any ways to other.

I would like to bring one more thing to your notice. You say getting bootable floppy image and installing basic boot up code on hard-disk using/linking win98se disc is wrong.
The site www.bootdisk.com has been there for quite a while. If Microsoft was having trouble for its existence the site would hav ended up in legal issues. Beside as i mentioned above, when you use the sys command it copies the basic files to boot the harddisk and not all the utilities. Its just 4 files that are copied, which you also would be aware of.

Anyways.. I have already have trial version in my hand, will update the edition for sure for the members and provide snapshots as well which would clearly show its a trial version which i use for testing.

Nigel,

Is Ghost 2003 still covered by a license? I'd expect so.

I could have perhaps been more diplomatic, but bear in mind that what we're talking about here is not some abstract concept, nor some "victimless crime" against some abstract evil corporate entity.

Piracy of Ghost is the theft of my work, and the work of my friends and colleagues. This happens on such a massive and very serious scale that does in fact represent a serious and ongoing danger to my livelihood, and that of my friends and colleagues.

That's what this is about, and frankly I think I'm entitled to speak plainly and bluntly about that.

I happen to agree with TheShadow that the state of software licensing is a mess, but then this is largely a problem with the U.S. legal system (and I am not a US citizen nor do I live or work in the US - if you folks think it's broken, it's you who have the power to fix it and not me) and the premise that the theft of my work is somehow justified by this is rather more insulting than what I said.

Brian wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 4:26am:

Is Ghost 2003 still covered by a license? I'd expect so.

Absolutely it does; the copyright resides in the code for the term specified by law, and it has not been released into the public domain - and there are some nasty disincentives for corporations to release code into the public domain, such as tort law, and equally nasty disincentives to release source code due to the disincentives of people mining same for patent violations and the like.

The nature of things is that the larger a business, the more it tends to be subject to those kinds of legal problem. You can't get a lot of money out of a small business without driving it under, after all. Big businesses, on the other hand... in fact last week's issue of The Economist contained some interesting analysis of who the targets and plaintiffs of patent action tend to be - see "Methods and Madness" on page 73 of the May 10 issue (at least, it's page 73 for the version sold in this market).

Copyright it may be, but it's also true that the license granted for use of Ghost 2003 by sale is perpetual and does not expire either.

wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 4:42am:

Piracy of Ghost is the theft of my work, and the work of my friends and colleagues. This happens on such a massive and very serious scale that does in fact represent a serious and ongoing danger to my livelihood, and that of my friends and colleagues.

https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board/message?board.id=109&thread.id=12678

Your work as of late has been lacking judging by this serious bug with Ghost.exe v11.5 linked above...

I have the new tutorial for implementing what the thread has been started for. It had taken an ugly turn but i guess at times road gets bumpy.

The main aim is to bring one step recovery manual to users, which as promised is ready :).

For people who have been causing furore here for issues which had delayed the whole process, as i mention in the guide also, i don't endorse any product nor encourage piracy.

For people who have been making noise about illegal use, the guide has special snapshots indicating the use of trial-ware from symantec. I guess that should satisfy there ego :).

The links have been my finding and some may agree to it and some may not. One of the issue raised was for link to the bootable images of win98se. Let Microsoft handle it better. If Microsoft mails me to remove it, i shall happily do so because i don't get money to put websites names on my guide. It an awareness journal and lets treat it that.

This was job of people who have been working in Symantec not people who use it. But i guess the forum shall make their work easy.

Anyways the link to the guide is below. Feel free to read it and post comments on it.

http://www.esnips.com/web/kaviteshsingh/

It seems they wont let me recover the ghost image >:( i created in DOS mode, but what the heck. Who cares, i am not going to buy this software anyways. They charge much more than what is needed and if at all i needed i would have bought just the imaging kit not the full suite which is of no use to me at least.
I have given the command after reading the manuals and documentation which came along.
So do check it if all is working fine with the guide.

Appreciate your co-operations. And i would like this post to deal with what this thread actually is made for not issues which can be dealt at some other discussion topic.

Thanks
Kavitesh.

I am wondering, when is DOS mode, would Ghost use the full memory available or will restrict to some limit.
Moreover in 16-bit environment of DOS, ghost runs 32-bit. Is that possible?? Would that imply on 32-bit environment 64-bit ghost would run?

Heh, two Karma points down already. Gotta love Teh Intarweb.


wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 11:33pm:

would Ghost use the full memory available or will restrict to some limit.

Ghost has no particular restriction, but large amounts of memory are of no use whatsoever to it. It basically never reads or writes a disk sector more than once, and so no form of buffering aide from that performed in disk drives themselves is or could possibly be of any benefit.

It may end up in a restricted-memory situation under some circumstances due to defects in the implementation of BIOS firmware, but these are only normally significant in PXE boot environments (where the initial PXE boot package consumes most of what little space the BIOS reports). Workarounds for this exist.

And no, 64-bit Ghost won't run on 32-bit environments, because the 64-bit processors use a very different instruction set from 32-bit ones and even if the processor is capable of 64-bit operation a 32-bit operating system will not configure the processor properly for executing 64-bit code. The 64-bit version of Ghost is for the 64-bit build of Windows PE, which does not contain the WOW64 emulation subsystem in order to be able to run the 32-bit binaries.

There is no practical difference of any kind between 32-bit and 64-bit editions aside from which run ones in which edition of Windows PE, because Ghost uses so little memory.

Thanks for previous update.

When setting up the one step recovery on my system, i wanted to protect recovery with password. I didnt want anyone to just press F-10 and play around with the system.

If i automate the script i can avoid it to some extent that it restarts the system after the recovery process by editing in AUTOEXEC.bat.

I was looking like something which acronis has, the moment you press the recovery key, it will prompt for password. Additionally u can lock the archives also with password..

Any thing available in Ghost like this ?

Two Questions more:-

1. I create the C drive image on the restore partition in DOS mode. When i try to restore it in DOS mode, it says it can restore in ghost console. Just the same error taken snapshot in article. I boot into normal windows and use ghost32 to recover, it throws error it cant restore because image is made from different ghost executable. Error code is 10026. So can i assume in trial u just cant test the version fully?

2. Lets assume, create the restore partition the same way described in article. Now i create C drive backup in restore partition. I format the C drive completely and install some other OS. the restore partition is still there, i want to restore now. If i use ghost boot disc or recreate the F-10 option will it write the bootsectors to make the restored partitioned bootable or i need to set some more changes?

The failure to restore is a restriction to prevent pirates from simply using the trialware and never buying the full product. It does not prevent any customer who is interested in doing a legitimate evaluation of the actual product functionality (since it is available through the console) for the purpose of buying it. Customers of genuine businesses who are interested in obtaining a nontrivial number of licenses can of course arrange a full evaluation through Enterprise Sales, as with any other product in the Symantec portfolio.

The other questions are things that are answered in the product documentation

I wonder what the point of giving the 30-day trial version license for evaluation.
Since ghost will anyways expire in 30 days within 30-days one should have been entitled to test the full software.

For other products of symantec its not the case, atleast for antivirus i can say.

So it means i cant test the DOS mode functionality of Ghost even after receiving and installing the key from symantec?

For restricting the DOS access, it would be great if you can point out the documentation of link, cauz i have not been able to find the details about it.
Thanks.

wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 6:12am:

For other products of symantec its not the case, atleast for antivirus i can say.

Antivirus requires constant LiveUpdating to be really effective, and there are subscription validity checks in place at that point so pirated copies are not as useful as the real thing. This isn't true for Ghost.

I wish we did not have to restrict Ghost in this way, but because the piracy of Ghost is so blatant and so enormous (to the tune of tens of millions of dollars annually, at the very least) it is very important that we do so. This does not apply to situations where a human salesperson is involved because when that is the case the salesperson can verify that the customer is legitimate.

If anyone evaluating the product is having trouble of any kind (including trouble with the manual), that is what the corporate sales staff are there to deal with. Give them a call. As I said, they can supply legal evaluation copies of the full product to those customers with a genuine need to do so, and there are pre-sales engineers who can help with customers having trouble in larger configurations.

The article in The Economist to which I referred is available here (as a subscriber to the print edition I hadn't noticed that they have changed the on-line edition so that articles are free to read for one year).

I highly recommend subcribing to the print edition of the magazine, by the way, even for those without an interest in economics. It's written for a more mature audience than something like Scientific American (which I no longer subscribe to, although I definitely would if I had children to read it with since it was my favourite thing in the world as a child of 10) but it is a lively, witty, and intellectually wide-ranging publication.

I have a USB hard-disk (SATA), i wanted to create the backup on of the main hard-disk C: partition. But when i get the option to choose the partitions it shows me only the main hard-disk.

Do i need to add in some specific drivers so that ghost detects the hard-disk. The main hard-disk is from Hitachi whereas the USB one is from Maxtor.

I use win98se boot-able CD to invoke Ghost.

The Ghost PE when used requires minimum of 256MB RAM, which is mainly because of the PE requirements.
Is there any such limitation of Ghost in DOS mode, or it will run even on older systems with 64-128MB RAM also?

As I said, anyone wishing to perform a legitimate product evaluation is welcome to contact the sales staff

Look Mate if you got Maxtor  use Maxblast 5
or Seagate tools which is basically Acronis true image 10
and it is free for people who own Maxtor or Seagate hard Disks
which is extremely good software.
google for it.

it also got Bart PE(UBCD4WIN) plugin (choose custom setup)

Ben
:)

thread locked at request of its originator.

for further info on this topic, you can contact him by pm or by email at kavitesh.s@gmail.com.