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 strategy for Windows 7
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1265924057

Message started by Christer on Feb 11th, 2010 at 3:34pm

Title: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Feb 11th, 2010 at 3:34pm
Hello all!

A friend (not the proverbial one, a real one), who also uses Ghost 2003, has asked me to build a new BOAC (Box Of Assembled Components) for him and it will run Windows 7. It will have a floppy drive and at least one PS/2 port to connect a keyboard. With that hardware, I can run Ghost 2003 from a set of floppies.

I've been trying to catch up on the discussions on Ghost 2003 compatibility with Windows 7 and believe that I can create images the same way that I've been creating them of Windows XP. This is how I do it (on XP):

I start with a new HDD [0] and install the OS. During the installation I create the primary partition [C:] and format it NTFS. When the installation is complete, I create an extended partition with a single logical drive [D:] and format it NTFS.

I also connect a backup HDD [1], create an extended partition with two logical drives [E: and F:] and format NTFS.

After completing the initial setup, including moving all user folders from C: to D:, I defragment both C: and D:.

Next, I create a Disk-To-Image of HDD0, the image file goes to F: on HDD1. With XP, that catches everything.

All subsequent images are Partition-To-Image of C: only and those image files go to F:.

User data is backed up from D: to E: using Karens Replicator.

With Windows XP, if HDD0 breaks, I can get a new one, restore the first image Disk-From-Image, restore the most current image Partition-From-Image and finally copy the user data back from E: to D:.

Am I living in a fantasy, believing that this would work with Windows 7 as well?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 11th, 2010 at 4:03pm
@ Christer


Christer wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 3:34pm:
Am I living in a fantasy, believing that this would work with Windows 7 as well? 

I think it will work just fine. With a few small changes.


Christer wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 3:34pm:
I start with a new HDD [0] and install the OS. During the installation I create the primary partition [C:] and format it NTFS.

Don't do this or Win7 will create a 100 MB System Reserved Partition which you don't need and is a pain. Create all your partitions before you let the Win7 DVD near your computer. This way the partitions will be cylinder aligned and compatible with Ghost 2003. When you install Win7 to your chosen partition, click Advanced and click Format. Sometimes Win7 won't install unless you do this Format.

I've created and restored Ghost 2003 partition images of Win7. I can't recall if Win7 needed a Repair after the restore but that is no big deal.

I still recommend your tutorial on moving Data folders out of WinXP. I haven't looked at a similar Win7 process yet as I still use WinXP as my main OS. New project for you???


Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 11th, 2010 at 6:01pm
I just did a Win7, Ghost 2003 image/restore. Win7 failed to boot and showed a Windows Boot Manager error.
A Startup Repair from the Win7 DVD and Win7 booted.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Dan Goodell on Feb 11th, 2010 at 7:49pm

Brian wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 4:03pm:
...moving Data folders out of WinXP. I haven't looked at a similar Win7 process yet ...

It's even easier in Win7, Brian.  Click the Start button and select the username link at the top of the right column.  Links to all your user folders are there in one place.  Right-click on any one of them, select 'Properties', select the 'Location' tab, and move it to a new location.  You don't even need to pre-create the folder structure on the destination partition.  Most of the time I just change the "C:" in the 'Location' tab to "D:" and let Win7 create the same subfolder structure and move all the files at the same time.



Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 11th, 2010 at 8:42pm
So easy. Thanks. Can you move the AppData folder?

It's a pleasure not having the Desktop in the C: drive!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Feb 12th, 2010 at 6:16am
Brian,


Quote:
Don't do this or Win7 will create a 100 MB System Reserved Partition which you don't need and is a pain. Create all your partitions before you let the Win7 DVD near your computer. This way the partitions will be cylinder aligned and compatible with Ghost 2003. When you install Win7 to your chosen partition, click Advanced and click Format. Sometimes Win7 won't install unless you do this Format.

Thanks for the heads up. I have been googling in the meantime and found out that there's a way to avoid that partition. My strategy has been amended to hook up all the HDDs to a XP system and create/format all the partitions. Maybe formating in XP is an overkill since I guess that I'll reformat in W7. (Formatting a HDD of 1 TB means "start the formating and go fishing" ... :-X ... right?)


Quote:
I still recommend your tutorial on moving Data folders out of WinXP. I haven't looked at a similar Win7 process yet as I still use WinXP as my main OS. New project for you???

I'm glad you find it useful ... :) ... but a similar one for W7 is some time away. I've just started learning and Dan indicates that such a guide may be unnecessary. (Writing the XP guide was a way to learn and better remember the procedures - not entirely unselfish ... :-/ ...)


Quote:
I just did a Win7, Ghost 2003 image/restore. Win7 failed to boot and showed a Windows Boot Manager error.
A Startup Repair from the Win7 DVD and Win7 booted.

Thanks for testing!

Did you create the image Disk-To-Image or Partition-To-Image? I assume Partition-To-Image and a restore to the same HDD, right? The result indicates that something changes, something that is not included in a Partition-To-Image.

Dan,


Quote:
It's even easier in Win7, Brian.

That's good to hear. Something has become easier ... :-* ... !

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 12th, 2010 at 2:07pm
@ Christer

I used Partition to Image. Restore to same HD.
The "source" HD had 8 MB of unallocated space preceding the Win7 partition. The "target" HD didn't, so the partition offset of the restored OS was different from the original. This was probably the cause of the Boot Manager error.


Christer wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 6:16am:
(Formatting a HDD of 1 TB means "start the formating and go fishing" ... Lips Sealed ... right?)

You don't need to go fishing if you do a quick format.


Dan, you use Ghost 2003 with Win7. I think you once said that a repair from the Win7 DVD doesn't always work. Any comments?


Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Feb 12th, 2010 at 3:29pm
Brian,
now you have lost me:


Quote:
I used Partition to Image. Restore to same HD.
The "source" HD had 8 MB of unallocated space preceding the Win7 partition. The "target" HD didn't, so the partition offset of the restored OS was different from the original. This was probably the cause of the Boot Manager error.

You say restore to same HD but there were differences ... :-? ... what happened in between creating and restoring?


Quote:
You don't need to go fishing if you do a quick format.

True but years ago, someone told me to always do a full format because the drive gets checked. In addition to that, it's been a long time since I went fishing ... ;) ... !

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 12th, 2010 at 3:42pm
@ Christer

I shouldn't have used those terms. Source and Target. I had 2 partitions on the HD. Win7 and a backup partition. The image was written to the backup partition. I deleted the Win7 partition and then found I couldn't restore to unallocated space so I created a partition. But this partition didn't have 8 MB of unallocated space in front of it.

Do you need any more info?

Edit.. I'll do it again with a Win7 partition not preceded by unallocated space and I won't delete the Win7 partition after creating the image.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 12th, 2010 at 4:32pm
No problems with that restore. Win7 booted on the first attempt.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 12th, 2010 at 4:54pm
As I'm already set up, I tried another test. The Win7 partition was deleted. A 2 GB partition was created and then a 10 GB partition for Win7. The same Ghost 2003 image was restored to the Win7 partition. It didn't boot due to "Partition does not contain an OS". My fault, as the 2 GB partition was "Active". So Win7 was set Active and again there was a Windows Boot Manager error presumably due to the different partition offset. A BCD Edit from BING had Win 7 booting within a minute.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Dan Goodell on Feb 12th, 2010 at 10:29pm
Christer wrote:
    Quote: "It's even easier in Win7, Brian."
    That's good to hear. Something has become easier!

Yeah, that's a surprise, isn't it?  Microsoft actually made those changes in Vista, but with the unpopularity of Vista I don't think many people noticed.  With XP (and earlier) I always had the feeling Microsoft really didn't want people changing those locations.  Now it seems like Microsoft is conceding, "Well, if that's what you want, then it's okay."


Brian wrote:
    So easy. Thanks. Can you move the AppData folder?

No, no easy way to move the AppData folder.  It can be done, but not easily.

Frankly, that doesn't bother me, though.  I don't look at that as being my data, anyway.  It's data that is put there by an application, and even though it's associated with a particular user, it's really for the application's use.  It's really just another form of application-specific configuration data--like configuration files or registry entries.  I see that as being quite different from my own data (my documents, my favorites, etc).

Sure, it would be nice to backup your personal preferences for the way applications are configured, but as long as that kind of stuff is spread throughout an assortment of registry entries, ini files, dat files, cfg files, files in 'c:\windows\system32', files in 'c:\program files', files in 'c:\documents and settings' ... well, if there's no easy way to get it all, being able to get just a piece of it is not a big deal.  There's just no consistency--did you ever notice there's 'c:\documents and settings\{user}\application data' and 'c:\documents and settings\{user}\local settings\application data'?  (Those are in XP, but Win7 is just as obfuscated.)

The only practical way to get it all is still a partition image.  So if that's what I've got to do, I don't fret over the location of AppData, just as I don't bother giving applications their own partition.


Brian wrote:
    It's a pleasure not having the Desktop in the C: drive!

I can't remember the last time I've had the Desktop on C: on any of my own computers.  In Win2000 and XP I've always moved the Desktop to another location.

As I recall, one of the reasons I started doing that was so I could share the Desktop across the network.  When left in 'c:\documents and settings', Win2000 and XP made it very difficult to share, but when moved elsewhere it was as easy to share as any other folder.

This enables me to put a shortcut on my Desktop such as, say, "Lucy's Desktop", and then whenever I want to send a document to my wife I can drag and drop the file onto the icon and it instantly pops up on her computer's Desktop.

I also move the Desktop on computers I prep for others.  Some people have a habit of creating folders on their Desktop and storing files there, which compromises the effectiveness of moving 'My Documents'.  Moving the Desktop takes care of that.


Brian wrote:
    Dan, you use Ghost 2003 with Win7. I think you once said that a repair from the Win7 DVD doesn't always work. Any comments?

IMHE, doing a repair from the CD/DVD in XP, Vista, and Win7 hasn't always worked for me.  But I won't say I've got a lot of experience trying because I tend to stay away from fix-it utilities that make changes without me really knowing what they're doing.  I'm always afraid they might make things worse and turn a repairable situation into an unrepairable loss.  I prefer to make changes manually that I know I can reverse if I need to.

What BCD edits do you make from BING, Brian?  I use BING's BCD editor to change the relevant boot settings to "{boot}", and after doing that I've had very little trouble moving a clone of the partition to any other partition or hard disk.



Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 12th, 2010 at 11:14pm

Dan Goodell wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 10:29pm:
What BCD edits do you make from BING, Brian?

I just use the suggestions from this page.

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

How do you move your Desktop in WinXP? I tried drag and drop as well as TweakUI. If I tried to create a new document from the Desktop it would appear in the new folder but it wouldn't be present on the Desktop.

I'm looking forward to sharing desktops. That does sound useful.

Edit... Fixed the Desktop problem. It just needed a restart.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Dan Goodell on Feb 13th, 2010 at 6:47am
Okay, the Terabyte how-to in your link suggests changing the relevant BCD options to "{boot}".  That's the same thing I do.


Brian wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 4:54pm:
As I'm already set up, I tried another test [...] Ghost 2003 image was restored to the Win7 partition [...] Win7 was set Active and again there was a Windows Boot Manager error presumably due to the different partition offset. A BCD Edit from BING had Win 7 booting within a minute. 

When you start the BCD edit, what are the settings before you change them?  If you're following the Terabyte how-to, that implies they must not have been {boot} before.  What were the BCD settings of your source partition before creating the image?

I use BING to BCD-edit my source partition to {boot} before making the image, and upon restore it stays {boot}.

I just tried an experiment, using Ghost 2003 to image a Win7 partition from a CHS-aligned partition #1 on HD-0, and restoring it to a 2048-aligned partition #2 on HD-1.  I added a BING menu boot item for it, and the clone booted right up without a problem.  (FTR, I don't use unlimited primaries, in the new boot item I ticked the "swap" option, hid all primary partitions on HD-0, and hid primary #1 on HD-1.)

(Aside: I think the DiskID and possibly also the LBA starting location of the boot partition may count toward determining whether Win7 thinks you need to reactivate or not, so whenever possible it's probably a good idea to keep one or both the same as the original source was.)


Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 13th, 2010 at 10:20am
Dan, I repeated my first test. I restored the old TeraByte image which restores with an 8 MB offset. The 4 parameters mentioned in the TeraByte how-to were all HD 0, Partition name. I checked all Win7 partitions on my main computer and they are the same so that's how Win7 must install.

All 4 parameters were changed to {boot} in BING's BCD Edit. The partition was imaged by Ghost2003, the partition was then deleted and a new partition created with a "zero" offset. The image was restored to this partition and Win7 booted. Yesterday when Win7 didn't boot the 4 BCD parameters were HD 0, empty.

I was using BING from a CD. It was not installed on the HD. Your test was more aggressive than mine so {boot} must be the answer for successful Ghost2003 restores. Christer, take note.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Feb 13th, 2010 at 10:46am
Brian,


Quote:
Do you need any more info?

You provided more info in your next posts which cover most of my questions.


Quote:
unallocated space

In Win XP, when you create partitions to the full capacity of the HDD, there are a few MB of space that cannot be allocated. That space does not show in Disk Manager. Is it different in Win 7?


Quote:
I'll do it again with a Win7 partition not preceded by unallocated space and I won't delete the Win7 partition after creating the image.

No problems with that restore. Win7 booted on the first attempt.

This indicates that my strategy will work as long as I restore to the original source partition. I also think that the presence of unallocated space has no impact on success or failure as long as there is no change.


Quote:
So Win7 was set Active and again there was a Windows Boot Manager error presumably due to the different partition offset.

This indicates that the problems arise if I restore to a partition other than the original source partition.

This is a rhetorical thought, I don't expect you to get a new hard disk to test ... ;) ... but: I wonder if my first image, Disk-To-Image, can be restored to a new hard disk and the result is a system booting without any further fiddling? If the hard disks are identical, my guess is YES but if not, my guess is NO.


Quote:
BCD Edit from BING

I'll have to read up on that ... :-[ ... I have no idea what you're discussing.

Dan,


Quote:
Yeah, that's a surprise, isn't it?  >>> Now it seems like Microsoft is conceding, "Well, if that's what you want, then it's okay."

Maybe they have read my guide ... 8-) ... ?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Feb 13th, 2010 at 11:00am
Brian,


Quote:
Christer, take note.

I have noticed what you have found out but I have to read up on "BCD Edit from BING " and also the TeraByte article to better understand what happens and why.

As a side note, I downloaded the Ghost 15 manual. The new version is not only compatible with Win 7, it also supports cold imaging, booted from the DVD. Is it possible that Symantec have listened to the customers who wants to do cold imaging?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 13th, 2010 at 11:02am
@ Christer


Christer wrote on Feb 13th, 2010 at 10:46am:
In Win XP, when you create partitions to the full capacity of the HDD, there are a few MB of space that cannot be allocated. That space does not show in Disk Manager. Is it different in Win 7?

I only saw that space in BING. I'm not sure why it's there. Something I did.

Dan's method of 4 {boot} entries should allay all your concerns. You can restore the Ghost2003 image to "anywhere" and it will boot.

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

This how-to only recommends 2 {boot} entries but 4 are needed for a successful Ghost2003 restore to "anywhere".

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 13th, 2010 at 11:14am

Christer wrote on Feb 13th, 2010 at 11:00am:
Is it possible that Symantec have listened to the customers who wants to do cold imaging? 

Yes. But they haven't listened about re-writing the section on Copy Drive, cloning one HD to another. It is basically the same guide written by PowerQuest and leads to so many clone failures.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Feb 13th, 2010 at 12:29pm
Brian,

Now, I at least know what BING and BCD stands for ... 8-) ... but I have not yet understood which {boot} entries you refer to. I have to read up a bit more on the 2 (TeraByte) and 4 (Dan) {boot} entries.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Dan Goodell on Feb 13th, 2010 at 7:21pm
Christer,

The BCD store (Boot Configuration Data) is the Vista/Win7 alternative to the boot.ini file used by NT/2K/XP.  In typical Microsoft fashion, though, they've turned what used to be a simple text file (boot.ini) into a non-human readable binary file (the BCD store), so you need some kind of translator or editor to read it.  There are a few BCD editors around, but the one I'm most familiar with is the one built into the BootIt-NG (BING) partition manager.

In the past we've discussed how Ghost (by default) automatically adjusts the boot.ini file on the copy if Ghost believes that is necessary to make the copy bootable.  The boot.ini file has been around since NT, so Ghost 2003 was aware of its existence and purpose, and could make the adjustment to it.  Without that adjustment--or if Ghost did it wrong--you might have to manually edit boot.ini so Windows NT/2K/XP will boot.  That's become familiar territory.

Similarly, one might need to edit the BCD store on a Vista/Win7 copy to make it boot.  However, Ghost 2003 predated the introduction of BCD, so it has no facility to automatically adjust it for you.  Consequently, there would be more circumstances in which you would have to do it yourself.  Newer Ghost versions that claim Vista compatibility presumably make the BCD edits automatically, just as Ghost 2003 did with boot.ini files.

The easiest way to familiarize yourself with BCD is to download BING and use it to start snooping around a Vista or Win7 partition's BCD.  You'll probably be able to get a fair idea of what many of the settings are for.  You'll notice there are several places where a specific HD or partition is referenced.  Those are the settings Brian and I are zeroing in on.

The edits I make are to go down the list and, anywhere I see a reference to "HD-0" or "HD-1", I change it to "{boot}".  That seems to be a shortcut way of referring to, "whatever partition you booted from."  If I make those changes and then use Ghost 2003 to clone or image the partition, all I need to do when I restore is set the partition active, and the fact Ghost 2003 didn't change anything isn't a liability.


Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 13th, 2010 at 10:08pm
A little off topic. There is a problem with Ghost 15 Copy Drive and Win7. After cloning the Win7 partition from old to new HD, neither OS will boot. A BING BCD Edit on the old HD fixes it. A BING BCD Edit and changing the Disk ID on the new HD to match the Disk ID of the old HD fixes it.

I tried BING's  4 {boot} edits prior to a Copy Drive. It works. Both HDs boot into Win7. This is a first time success for Ghost 15. And the Disk ID on the old HD isn't being copied to the new HD.

Dan, is there a Win7 command line equivalent to what BING is doing?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 13th, 2010 at 11:27pm
A complication. If you have Win7 with a SRP and edit the 4 parameters to {boot}, Win 7 won't boot. There is a Windows Boot Manager error. If the first two parameters are changed to HD 0, Win7 partition, the OS boots.

Edit.... I removed the SRP after copying the booting files to Win7. Now 4 {boot} entries can be used and Win7 boots.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Dan Goodell on Feb 14th, 2010 at 1:16am

Brian wrote on Feb 13th, 2010 at 11:27pm:
If you have Win7 with a SRP and edit the 4 parameters to {boot}, Win 7 won't boot.

That doesn't necessarily surprise me.  I don't know what {boot} specifically refers to, so when you've got the boot process split between separate boot and system partitions, I don't know enough to predict how it will behave.

When you've got the active partition, the boot partition, and the system partition all as one and the same, understanding precisely what {boot} refers to is not so crucial... and a good argument for keeping things simple!




Brian wrote on Feb 13th, 2010 at 10:08pm:
Dan, is there a Win7 command line equivalent to what BING is doing? 

I'm sure there is, somewhere ... boot into Win7, open an elevated command prompt, and type "bcdedit /?" or "bcdedit /set /?" and you'll get some info.

Editing with BING is so much easier that I haven't been interested in taking the time to explore alternate methods.




Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Feb 14th, 2010 at 11:03am
Dan,


Quote:
The easiest way to familiarize yourself with BCD is to download BING and use it to start snooping around a Vista or Win7 partition's BCD.

I think that's what I have to do. Thanks for your time ... :) ... !

Brian,


Quote:
There is a problem with Ghost 15 Copy Drive and Win7.

Was the operation run from within Win 7 or booted from the Ghost 15 DVD?

(Maybe we should start a new topic on Ghost 15 in the appropriate forum? Silly me bringing it into this discussion ... :-[ ... )

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 14th, 2010 at 12:22pm
@ Christer


Christer wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 11:03am:
Was the operation run from within Win 7 or booted from the Ghost 15 DVD?

Unlike hot and cold imaging, Ghost 15 Copy Drive can only be run from Windows.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Feb 15th, 2010 at 3:49am
Okey Brian,
I'll stop asking stupid questions and thank you for your time!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 15th, 2010 at 1:26pm
@ Christer

Quoting NightOwl, "No question is stupid". Keep them coming.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on Feb 20th, 2010 at 12:59pm
@ Christer and @ Brian

I've been reading this and similar thread with great interest--I hope to be upgrading to Win7 in the future and this info will be very helpful:

Quote from Brian's reply #1:


Quote:
I still recommend your (Christer's) tutorial on moving Data folders out of WinXP.

Help me out here!  I recall Christer posting a thread on the forums here a long time ago (several years), and I somehow did not include that in my file of *important* threads to remember  :-[ .  It talked about moving data files (Favorites, My Documents, email storage folders, etc.) to a separate partition from the OS (which I have done!) so one could restore the OS partition from an image file without loosing any data files that had accumulated since the OS image file was created!

Can't find it--do you remember the link to that posting? 

And, is there a Christer Tutorial on some other forum that you are referring to?  Links?


Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Feb 20th, 2010 at 3:04pm
@ NightOwl

http://www.windowsbbs.com/windows-xp/49222-moving-windows-xp-default-folders-rev1.html


Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on Feb 21st, 2010 at 9:34am
@ Brian

As always--thank you very much!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Feb 28th, 2010 at 8:12am
NightOwl,
I wasn't ignoring you ... 8-) ... I've been in Austria during the past week! Six days with sunshine out of eight and good snow conditions above 1500 meters (that's 5000 feet to most of you) altitude.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 1st, 2010 at 2:56pm
I have been fooling around with the new BOAC and I started by installing Windows XP to create and format all partitions before Windows 7 sees the hard disks.

My first experience was that hooking up the three hard disks to the SATA_0, SATA_1 and SATA_2 ports (the DVD to the SATA_3 port) produced a wonderful mix of masters and slaves in the BIOS. I hooked them up one by one and partitioned/formated prior to hooking up the next. I didn't reflect on the mix but thought that the "SATA-crap" still hadn't been sorted. Well, when everything had been partitioned and formated, it was a mess.

The partition numbers are how the partitions appeared in Ghost and the drive letters from Windows Disk Management:

1:1 = C:
1:2 = D:
2:1 = G:
2:2 = H:
3:1 = E:
3:2 = F:

(The order of creation was C:, D:, E:, F:, G: and H:)

In Disk Management, the first disk to be hooked up (on SATA_0) became Disk0 (1:1-2 with C: and D:), the second (on SATA_1) became Disk2 (3:1-2 with E: and F:) and the third (on SATA_2) became Disk1 (2:1-2 with G: and H:).

I had to take a good read of the MB manual to sort it out and by creating a folder on each partition (!-C, !-D and so forth) I finally identified which SATA ports were designated as masters and which were designated as slaves. Finally, the three hard disks and the DVD got hooked up as masters on channel 0-3 which produced a logical order in Windows Disk Management as well as in Ghost:

SATA_0 became Disk0 (1:1-2 with C: and D:) and master on channel 0

SATA_1 became Disk1 (2:1-2 with E: and F:) and master on channel 1

SATA_2 and SATA_3 were not used because they were assigned as slaves on channel 0 and channel 1 respectively.

SATA_4 became Disk2 (3:1-2 with G: and H:) and master on channel 2

SATA_5 received the DVD as master on channel 3

I just love ... ::) ... the logic and am happy to not be configuring any RAID setup.

Anyway, the end result was logical and reduces the potential of making mistakes:

1:1 = C:
1:2 = D:
2:1 = E:
2:2 = F:
3:1 = G:
3:2 = H:

Next, I installed Windows 7 (formating C: in the process).

I created an Image, Partition-to-Image (target on 3:2), of 1:1 and an Image, Disk-to-Image (target on 3:2), of 1:1-2.

The P-to-I was restored to 1:1 and the system booted right up.

The D-to-I was restored to 1:1-2 and the system didn't boot but had to be repaired using the Windows 7 DVD.

I had not changed anything on 1:1-2 but during the setting up of the restore D-to-I, Ghost suggested the original size for 1:1 but a smaller size (~˝ of the original) for 1:2 with some unallocated space left behind. I changed the value to use the full disk space. I wonder why this happened because, as I recall previous tests, if restored D-to-I to the same hard disk, Ghost does not alter the sizes. Maybe my teflon coated memory fails me?

No matter what, the repair is quick and not too much of a nuisance.

(I have not had time to learn about BootItNG. That is one for the future.)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on Apr 2nd, 2010 at 12:38pm
@ Christer

Thanks for sharing your experience!  This doesn't sound *easy*!


Quote:
I had to take a good read of the MB manual to sort it out and by creating a folder on each partition (!-C, !-D and so forth) I finally identified which SATA ports were designated as masters and which were designated as slaves.

So, you used those to confirm what was in the Motherboard's (MB) manual--or was that information just not stated in a usable fashion?

I wonder, is this MB specific--or is there an agreed upon standard for how SATA controllers are setup to work on all MB's?

I've seen reference to being able to go into the BIOS on newer MBs and select which drive to boot from--doesn't have to be like the old IDE standard where the HDD has to be on the primary controller, and on the master channel.  If you select a drive that is something other than *primary, master*--does the drive letter C:\ get assigned to that HDD--even though it will be detected in a different order by a DOS or WinPE program that follows the Microsoft way of detecting hardware for drive letter assignments prior to being able to use the registry to remember the drive letter assignments!


Quoting myself above:


Quote:
the Microsoft way of detecting hardware for drive letter assignments

Actually, I'm not sure *who* is in charge of determining the order that devices and partition get assigned drive letter first, second, etc.--does Microsoft's software arrange things--or is it a standardized sequence that the BIOS presents the devices to Microsoft's software that then is assigning drive letters--I don't know how this is being regulated.....

Order in Which MS-DOS and Windows Assign Drive Letters

Sure looks like it's the order that the BIOS presents the HDDs to the software that determines who's first, etc..

And more reading:  Google search:  what controls sequence for drive letter assignment.


I also assume that even though you might be able to select which drive to boot from--does it still have to be the *active, primary partition*, and the other primaries (if present) are not *Active*--just holding data, etc.--I know you can change that behavior if using a boot loader such as BING--but if using Microsoft's boot--is the *primary, active* designation still required?

Just asking for general knowledge sake  ;) --no worry if it's not known!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 2nd, 2010 at 5:50pm
NightOwl,
I don't remember if I mentioned which MB I work with but it is the Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD4 and its Manual.


Quote:
So, you used those to confirm what was in the Motherboard's (MB) manual--or was that information just not stated in a usable fashion?

Well, I have to confess that I didn't read the whole MB manual prior to messing things up. I did that all by myself ... ::) ... !

I did find the section "internal connectors", in which there is a drawing of the SATA ports with their respective number, SATA2_0 > SATA2_5. I assumed that the days of Master and Slave were history, as long as the IDE port wasn't used. I simply hooked up the drives onto the SATA2 ports in the desired order. When things didn't turn out as expected, I had a look in the BIOS section, "standard CMOS features". There is a listing of the different IDE channels, and that's when it got complicated:

Channel 0 Master
Channel 0 Slave
Channel 1 Master
Channel 1 Slave
Channel 2 Master
Channel 3 Master
Channel 4 Master
Channel 4 Slave
Channel 6 Master
Channel 6 Slave
Channel 7 Master
Channel 9 Master
Channel 9 Slave

That counts 13 channels and there are 1xFDD, 1xIDE (2 drives), 6xSATA2, 2xSATA3 and 2xeSATA which makes 13 possible devices but the channel numbering is clear as mud ... :-X ... !

Since all partitions, except for C:, were empty, I "tagged" the partitions with folders indicating their respective drive letter in Windows to find out which was which in Ghost. "Tagging" was just a means of quick identification in Ghost and it helped since there is no reference (that I have found) in the MB manual of which port connects to which channel.

The only logic is that the order in which the hard disks and partitions are displayed in Windows Disk Management is the same in Ghost, no matter to which ports they are connected.

The first hard disk was connected to SATA2_0, channel 0 Master, was partitioned C: and D: > no problems.

The second hard disk was connected to SATA2_1, channel 1 Master, was partitioned E: and F: > no problems.

The third hard disk was connected to SATA2_2, channel 0 Slave, was partitioned G: and H: > problems! In Disk Management, the third hard disk was displayed as Disk1, moving the second hard disk down to Disk2.

So, by "tagging" the partitions I managed to find out which port connected to which channel. It took some shifting around of the hard disks but the end result was the desired result.


Quote:
I wonder, is this MB specific--or is there an agreed upon standard for how SATA controllers are setup to work on all MB's?

I checked another Gigabyte MB, the GA-790XTA-UD4 (manual) which is an AM3 board and it is different. (I haven't identified which port connects to which channel on that one. That has to wait until the next AMD-build.)


Quote:
I've seen reference to being able to go into the BIOS on newer MBs and select which drive to boot from--doesn't have to be like the old IDE standard where the HDD has to be on the primary controller, and on the master channel.

You can select "hard disk boot priority", in this case CH0.M, CH1.M, CH2.M and you just move them up/down.


Quote:
If you select a drive that is something other than *primary, master*--does the drive letter C:\ get assigned to that HDD--even though it will be detected in a different order by a DOS or WinPE program that follows the Microsoft way of detecting hardware for drive letter assignments prior to being able to use the registry to remember the drive letter assignments!

I don't know but I don't think so. The BIOS know nothing of drive letters, only positions on the controller(s).


Quote:
Sure looks like it's the order that the BIOS presents the HDDs to the software that determines who's first, etc..

Yes, I think that Windows "reads" the BIOS to find out which drives are connected and it gets them in the "BIOS order". My problems arose when connecting the hard disks in sequence onto the ports. I still don't understand why channel 0 Slave (SATA2_2) took priority over channel 1 Master (SATA2_1)?


Quote:
I also assume that even though you might be able to select which drive to boot from--does it still have to be the *active, primary partition*, and the other primaries (if present) are not *Active*--just holding data, etc.--I know you can change that behavior if using a boot loader such as BING--but if using Microsoft's boot--is the *primary, active* designation still required?

Installing XP on a fresh, unpartitioned hard disk, creating the partition onto which XP is to be installed during the initial stages, results in an active partition, C:. I don't know how Windows 7 does it because I decided to install XP to partition and format all partitions before Windows 7 sees the hard disks. The objective was/is to not make it possible for Windows 7 to create that pesky 100 MB partition it thinks it needs but it can do without.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on Apr 5th, 2010 at 1:33am
@ Christer

Several quick comments--I'm pressed for time, but will answer more fully later:

Of course, the drive letter assignments are specific to the WinXP installation--and the one-by-one addition of eacy additional HDD.  If you installed Win7 with all the HDD's installed--it's entirely possible that the drive letters assigned by Win7 could be quite different!

And the Ghost drive # and partition # that is used if all the partitions on the various HDDs are NTFS partitions, would not have any relationship to what DOS would assign to those partitions if they where of a FAT type!  But, those Ghost assignments of drive # are the order in which the BIOS is presenting the drives and partitions to Ghost--and presumably that's how the drives and partitions are presented to Windows as well--so the Ghost drive # should match the Disk Management disk #--but the drive letter assignments may be assigned using a different sequence!

Giving each partition a meaningful partition name--or a identifiably partition size that is unique on each drive would give you another way to tract which drive is seen on which SATA port, in Ghost, and Windows.

When you do a *Local > To Partition > From Image*--Ghost does not zero out the destination drive's NT-signature--so I'd expect a restore of a partition would boot fine!

But, when you do a *Local > To Disk > From Image*--the default Ghost setting is to zero the drive's NT-signature.  If you have the standard install of Win7 that uses the new BC-Store for booting--if the NT-signature changes because it was erased by Ghost--then boot failure occurs--that was true of Win Vista--and now of Win7!

You can use the command line Ghost switch *-fdsp* to tell Ghost not to zero the NT-signature of the Destination HDD--this should allow the restore of the disk image to the original source HDD without loosing boot-ability.   Or, you could do the BC Edits that where necessary for Vista--and once you make those changes, then Win7 will boot in the same manner as WinXP--not looking for the HDD with a specific NT-signature--but instead just for the first primary, active partition on the first HDD seen.


See this discussion:  Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista , especially starting here:  reply #70!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:37am
NightOwl,


Quote:
You can use the command line Ghost switch *-fdsp* to tell Ghost not to zero the NT-signature of the Destination HDD--this should allow the restore of the disk image to the original source HDD without loosing boot-ability.

I'll do a test using that switch but it will have to wait a day or two.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 7th, 2010 at 8:17am

Quote:
I'll do a test using that switch but it will have to wait a day or two.

I added the "-fdsp" switch to the Ghost floppies and created a Partition-To-Image and a Disk-To-Image. I restored both (in succession with a reboot in between) and the computer booted right up after both restores.

(As an aside: The "-fdsp" switch is the only switch I use. No problems with detecting SATA drives or NTFS partitions as are discussed in other topics. When installing Windows 7, unlike when installing Windows XP, I didn't have to provide SATA drivers. It seems like either the BIOS or the Windows 7 DVD sorts that.)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 7th, 2010 at 8:30am
I forgot to mention:

During setting up the Disk-From-Image restore, Ghost suggested the following sizes:

1:1 > new size = 95385 MB > old size = 95385 MB
Apparently unchanged, I left that one as it was suggested.

1:2 > new size = 344401 MB > old size 858481 MB
I edited "new size" to 858481 MB.

In Windows 7 > Disk Management, the sizes were exactly, to the last byte, as prior to restoring the images.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on Apr 10th, 2010 at 1:32am
@ Christer


Quote:
I added the "-fdsp" switch to the Ghost floppies and created a Partition-To-Image and a Disk-To-Image. I restored both (in succession with a reboot in between) and the computer booted right up after both restores.

Good!  You just verified that the Vista workaround works for Win7 as well!  Thanks for the testing and report back!

So, the other test is whether the BCEdits will also make it so Win7 acts like former WinXP.  I'm not completely sure, but I think the new Vista and Win7 BCStore for booting uses the disk NT-signature so that the boot drive can be other than the first active primary on the first seen HDD controller--meaning, if you install it on the SATA HDD hooked up to SATA port 0, and then later move it to SATA port 3, change the BIOS to boot from the HDD on SATA port 3, then Windows will see that the boot drive has the same NT-signature as it did when on SATA port 0, and it simply boots from that new location.

When you do the BCEdits, you now have told the OS to once again look for the first active primary on the first seen HDD controller.

That may not be entirely accurate--I've not tried to nail that down exactly--but, I hope it's in the ballpark!

If you have made an image of the boot drive before doing the BCEdits, and then restore that image--you probably restore the original BCStore and then it will not boot without a *boot repair*--because it's back to the way it was before doing the edits.

So, the point is, once you do the BCEdits, you must make new images and restore from them if you want the boot to succeed without having to do the *boot repair* going forward!

The BCEdits should make it so you don't have to use the *-fdsp* switch any longer!


Quote:
(As an aside: The "-fdsp" switch is the only switch I use. No problems with detecting SATA drives or NTFS partitions as are discussed in other topics. When installing Windows 7, unlike when installing Windows XP, I didn't have to provide SATA drivers. It seems like either the BIOS or the Windows 7 DVD sorts that.)

Well, that seems to indicate that Ghost 2003 is and the SATA controllers are set to compatible modes--see page 52 and 53 of the User Guide you mentioned in your reply # 34 above--the default setting for the SATA Control Mode is *IDE* and not *AHCI*--I think that's what's required to make them work together.  Although, I thought it was the *SATA Native Mode* setting that was needed--but it says the default is *Disabled*--what are your settings?  Both of those settings (i.e. Native Mode and Non-AHCI) have been mentioned as playing a role in SATA compatibility with Ghost 2003--although the most recent build of Ghost 2003 seems to have solved most problems!

As far as Win7's installation CD is concerned--apparently that installation CD already has the needed SATA controller drivers included on the CD--no need for the F6 sub-routine to add drivers.  WinXP on the other hand is quite a bit older than the motherboard you're working with--so not surprised the drivers are not included on the WinXP installation CD!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on Apr 10th, 2010 at 1:41am
@ Christer


Quote:
I forgot to mention:

1:2 > new size = 344401 MB > old size 858481 MB
I edited "new size" to 858481 MB.

I have never quite figured out why Ghost 2003 sometimes suggest changes to the restored partition size when it's being restored to the same source HDD that the image came from.

But, there may be a *switch* for that!  Look on page 164 of the Ghost 2003 User Guide for the description of the *-szee* switch:


Quote:
-szee

Forces Norton Ghost to keep the sizes of all destination partitions the same as in the source
partition (no resizing).




That motherboard has some nice specifications--lots of options for what can be connected to that system!

Is this a new system you are building for yourself--or for someone else?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on Apr 10th, 2010 at 9:57am
@ Christer

I wanted to come back to your reply # 32 above where you sorted out which disk on which SATA port gave you which designated disk # in Windows Disk Management:

Looking at what you determined was necessary to get everything to line up in order in both Windows and Ghost, it certainly doesn't look like the motherboard User Manual offers much guidance!  Looking at page 48 in the MB User Manual--it does not seem to mirror what you report as the final arrangement!  Shouldn't the SATA ports listed on page 26 be correlated to what is listed in the BIOS as the various channels and master/slave designations as seen on that page 48?!


Quote:
Anyway, the end result was logical and reduces the potential of making mistakes:

1:1 = C:
1:2 = D:
2:1 = E:
2:2 = F:
3:1 = G:
3:2 = H:

Next, I installed Windows 7 (formating C: in the process).

Here's my question--did you just leave your three HDDs installed at this point?  And, did Win7 assign drive letters to match what you had ended up with previously with WinXP?

I can understand that Ghost would continue to see the HDDs as disk 1, 2, and 3 in the same order as before because the physical port they're hooked up to did not change (presumably!).  And, same for Win7's Disk Management--I would expect disk 0, 1, and 2 to remain in the same order because the physical port remained the same.

But, did the drive letter assignment come out correctly?!  You forced the drive letters to be assigned to the HDDs to be in a particular order originally by attaching only one HDD at a time--I follow the logic of why those would be assigned the drive letter in the order you intended.  But, if the HDDs are all hooked up at the same time when Win7 is installed--I wouldn't necessarily expect the drive letter to be assigned that same way as had been done with WinXP and the one by one addition of the HDDs.

My reason for saying that--based on reading how drive letters are assigned in pre-WinNT systems and pre-SATA controllers (and knowing it from experience  ;) )--most systems had a primary and secondary IDE controller--and each of those had a master and slave.  You had to hook up one HDD to the primary, master channel and create at least one primary, active partition if you wanted to boot.  In DOS, that would be assigned C:\.  If that first HDD also had a second partition--what drive letter that would be assigned to that 2nd partition depended on if a second (or third) HDD was also hooked up!  If no second or 3rd HDD, then the second partition would get D:\

But, if you had a second HDD--and you partitioned that 2nd HDD with at least one primary partition, then DOS would skip that 2nd partition on the first HDD, and assign the next DOS drive letter to the first seen primary on that 2nd HDD.  If there was a third HDD with a primary partition--DOS would assign the next drive letter to that one.  Once all HDDs seen in whatever physical order the BIOS presented them to DOS had a DOS drive letter assigned to the first seen primary partition, then DOS would return to the first HDD and look next for any logical drives in an Extended Partition.  DOS would assign all logical drives seen on the first HDD with DOS drive letters.  Then move onto the next seen HDD, etc.  Once all logical drives had drive letter assignments on each HDD, then DOS goes back to the first HDD and looks for any additional primary partitions and assigns those with a drive letter.  Then moves onto the next HDD, etc.

However, if you do not create a primary partition on any other 2nd, 3rd, ....etc. HDD--but instead only create an Extended Partition with only logical drives--then DOS will not have assigned any addition DOS drive letters until it comes back to that first HDD and then assigns all logical drives on that HDD.  So if it had one primary and one logical drive, you would have C:\ and D:\.  If the next HDD has two logical drives in an Extended Partition (and no primaries), then they would get E:\ and F:\.  And if a third HDD with two logical drives in and Extended Partition (again, no primaries)--they get G:\ and H:\--so the final sequence is the order you were trying to achieve with your SATA HDDs!

Of course, this all assumes that the various partitions are FAT and not NTFS partitions--DOS has to *see* the partitions in order to assign drive letters!  If you use NTFS partitions, then no DOS drive letters are assigned at all--that's why you report the Ghost partitions as drive #1 with partition 1 and 2--i.e. 1:1, 1:2, etc.

But, in your case, we are not looking at what DOS assigns--instead we're looking at what Windows assigns for drive letters!

My whole point being--you never mentioned how you partitioned each HDD--I assume NTFS because no DOS drive letters are seen in Ghost.  But, were they primary partitions--one or both, or were one or both created inside an Extended Partition as logical drives?  Did you partition the first HDD differently than the 2nd and 3rd HDD?

And, did you leave them all hooked up when you installed Win7--did all your drive letters assigned inside Windows line up as they had in WinXP when you installed one drive at a time?

Hopefully, all that makes some sense above--I'm just curious how Win7 handled assigning drive letters vs how DOS would have, given this new *order* based on SATA controllers with mysterious *master/slave* assignments!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 13th, 2010 at 12:20pm
NightOwl,
just to let you know, I'm a bit tied up right now ... :-[ ... but will respond as soon as I can!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on Apr 13th, 2010 at 9:52pm
@ Christer


Quote:
just to let you know, I'm a bit tied up right now ...  ... but will respond as soon as I can!

No worry--no hurry!  I know all about being tied up and unable to answer--I pretty much assumed that was the case.......get to it when you can. 

Thanks for the heads-up.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by wp on Apr 19th, 2010 at 8:37pm
i tried g2003 and g 11.5 backup of win 7 straight up with no modifiers -- no go. 

i give up. 

xp for me.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 28th, 2010 at 7:13am
NightOwl,
with reference to your reply #39:


Quote:
The BCEdits should make it so you don't have to use the *-fdsp* switch any longer!

BCEdits are, regrettably, still on the "to learn" list ... :-[ ... but I will hopefully get to it.


Quote:
Well, that seems to indicate that Ghost 2003 is and the SATA controllers are set to compatible modes--see page 52 and 53 of the User Guide you mentioned in your reply # 34 above--the default setting for the SATA Control Mode is *IDE* and not *AHCI*--I think that's what's required to make them work together.  Although, I thought it was the *SATA Native Mode* setting that was needed--but it says the default is *Disabled*--what are your settings?

In BIOS the access mode is set to "AUTO" and the options are "CHS", "LBA", "Large" and "AUTO".


Quote:
As far as Win7's installation CD is concerned--apparently that installation CD already has the needed SATA controller drivers included on the CD--no need for the F6 sub-routine to add drivers.  WinXP on the other hand is quite a bit older than the motherboard you're working with--so not surprised the drivers are not included on the WinXP installation CD!

No difference between XP and 7. No SATA drivers needed.

With reference to your reply #40:


Quote:
But, there may be a *switch* for that!  Look on page 164 of the Ghost 2003 User Guide for the description of the *-szee* switch:

-szee

Forces Norton Ghost to keep the sizes of all destination partitions the same as in the source
partition (no resizing).

I've had a look around in the manual and also found this switch but I'm not sure that I'd like that. I would prefer if Ghost resized proportionally, e.g Old = 250 GB split in 50 GB + 200 GB > New = 500 GB split in 100 GB + 400 GB. I have a memory of that being the "default" in the past but I don't recall which version of Ghost.


Quote:
That motherboard has some nice specifications--lots of options for what can be connected to that system!

Is this a new system you are building for yourself--or for someone else?

It's a build for a friend who does a lot of Photoshopping. We discussed an AMD Phenom II X4 945 - Gigabyte GA-790XTA-UD4 based system as well but decided in favour of the Core i7 860 based system. I think that I personally will save some money and go AMD (when time permits ... :-X ... )

With reference to your reply #41:


Quote:
Shouldn't the SATA ports listed on page 26 be correlated to what is listed in the BIOS as the various channels and master/slave designations as seen on that page 48?!


Well, they are but it's not obvious how ... :-/ ... if I recall correctly:
SATA2_0 = IDE Channel 0 Master
SATA2_1 = IDE Channel 1 Master
SATA2_2 = IDE Channel 0 Slave
SATA2_3 = IDE Channel 1 Slave
SATA2_4 = IDE Channel 2 Master
SATA2_5 = IDE Channel 3 Master

There are 2 SATA3 ports, GSATA3_6 and GSAT3_7 but I have not used those and don't know to which channel they are "connected".


Quote:
Here's my question--did you just leave your three HDDs installed at this point?  And, did Win7 assign drive letters to match what you had ended up with previously with WinXP?

When I installed XP on unused drives, I hooked them up one by one. First HDD0, partitioned, formated and installed XP. Next HDD1, partitioned and formated and finally HDD2, partitioned and formated. Now, I noticed the mess.

When I installed W7, I left all HDD:s hooked up and the drive letters were assigned as listed. The DVD/RW was assigned I:, immediately changed to X:.


Quote:
But, did the drive letter assignment come out correctly?!  You forced the drive letters to be assigned to the HDDs to be in a particular order originally by attaching only one HDD at a time--I follow the logic of why those would be assigned the drive letter in the order you intended.  But, if the HDDs are all hooked up at the same time when Win7 is installed--I wouldn't necessarily expect the drive letter to be assigned that same way as had been done with WinXP and the one by one addition of the HDDs.

They came out the desired way and it seems like the controllers are searched for partitions in the "good old way": First, starting at channel 0, primary partitions are identified and drive letters are assigned. Next, restarting at channel 0, logical drives are identified and drive letters are assigned. I believe the "secret" behind the success is that there was only one primary partition, the first partition on the first HDD. Had there been primaries on the other HDD:s as well, the outcome would have been different, both in the case of XP and W7. (Does that make sense?)

When I installed XP, the partitions on HDD0, connected to SATA2_0 (IDE Channel 0 Master), were assigned C: and D: respectively.
When I connected HDD1 to SATA2_1 (IDE Channel 1 Master), the partitions were assigned E: and F: respectively.
Thus far, all was well but when I connected HDD2 to SATA2_2 (IDE Channel 0 Slave), these partitions were assigned E: and F: respectively AND the partitions on HDD1 were reassigned G: and H: respectively.

My conclusion is that the Channel numbers rule and the task is to identify to which SATA port the respective channel connects. When I had sorted it out in XP and connected the HDD:s to the correct SATA ports, W7 got it right with all HDD:s connected during the installation.

(Note that there is no hidden W7 system partition. This was avoided, as recommended by Brian, by installing XP and partitioning prior to installing W7.)


Quote:
Hopefully, all that makes some sense above--I'm just curious how Win7 handled assigning drive letters vs how DOS would have, given this new *order* based on SATA controllers with mysterious *master/slave* assignments!

I hope that my reply (with 4 characters to spare) covers "all bases" of your posts ... :-X ... !

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 28th, 2010 at 8:00am
A few additional thoughts, assumptions and conclusions based on my findings:

With four drives, I selected to connect them all as masters:

SATA2_0 = IDE Channel 0 Master > HDD0 with C: and D:
SATA2_1 = IDE Channel 1 Master > HDD1 with E: and F:
SATA2_2 = IDE Channel 0 Slave > unused
SATA2_3 = IDE Channel 1 Slave > unused
SATA2_4 = IDE Channel 2 Master > HDD2 with G: and H: (actually removable in a rack)
SATA2_5 = IDE Channel 3 Master > DVD/RW

If I connect a drive to any of the unused ports, the "current" drive lettering will get messed up.

I believe the same assignments of drive letters would be the case if connected as below:

SATA2_0 = IDE Channel 0 Master > HDD0 with C: and D:
SATA2_1 = IDE Channel 1 Master > HDD2 with G: and H: (actually removable in a rack)
SATA2_2 = IDE Channel 0 Slave  > HDD1 with E: and F:
SATA2_3 = IDE Channel 1 Slave > DVD/RW
SATA2_4 = IDE Channel 2 Master > unused
SATA2_5 = IDE Channel 3 Master > unused

The difference is that connecting additional drives to any of the unused ports, the "current" drive lettering will not get messed up.

From my own post:


Quote:
There are 2 SATA3 ports, GSATA3_6 and GSAT3_7 but I have not used those and don't know to which channel they are "connected".

That's partially true. I have connected the SATA port on the case front panel header to GSATA3_6 but have not hooked up a drive and in concequence, don't know to which channel it correlates.

I also don't know to which channel the IDE connector correlates.

With thirteen "channels" in all, most are accounted for:

6 SATA2, 2 SATA3, 2 IDE, 2 eSATA making it twelve. The thirteenth, is that the FDD?

Hmm, I've got a headache ... ::) ... !

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on Apr 29th, 2010 at 1:19am
@ Christer

Yeah, my head hurts too!  It's hard to follow some of the sequences when you are not the one with the hardware in front of you to understand everything you have physically done....

But, I think I have the gist of what's been done.  My take away summary would be that Win7 follows the same *rules* of precedence for assigning drive letters as has been done for years based on the DOS outline--that being said, I bet if you set up you HDDs with partitions so they are assigned DOS drive letters--or in the case of NTFS where you don't get drive letters, but drive numbers and partition #--I bet the results will be the order you want when Win(whichever OS) assigns drive letters--should match what Ghost shows!  (I could be wrong--but, I think that will work--just have to be able to track which drive is which as well as the partitions.)


Quote:
It's a build for a friend who does a lot of Photoshopping. We discussed an AMD Phenom II X4 945 - Gigabyte GA-790XTA-UD4 based system as well but decided in favour of the Core i7 860 based system. I think that I personally will save some money and go AMD (when time permits ...

I thought way back when (2002 or 2003) we had that long thread--about there being issues with AMD based processors and their respective North/South bridges and drive performance issues-- that you swore off AMD for the future--I know I have!!!!!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 29th, 2010 at 2:57am
NightOwl,


Quote:
I thought way back when (2002 or 2003) we had that long thread--about there being issues with AMD based processors and their respective North/South bridges and drive performance issues-- that you swore off AMD for the future--I know I have!!!!!

I think you're confusing me with someone else but I may be wrong. The only item in my body that gets upgraded is my memory ... ::) ... which is now teflon coated!

I built my first BOAC (Box Of Assembled Components) in 2001 and have built a few more since then. Only two, including this last build, have been Intel based. Photoshop benchmarks indicated that it was a good idea and price wasn't a primary issue.

My main reason for going AMD, as long as there is no specific reason not to, is to support the only Intel competition. If AMD were going "tits up", Intel prices would immediately go in the same direction.

Anyway, a lot of water under the (North/South) bridges since 2002/2003 ... :-X ... maybe it's time to re-evaluate?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on Apr 29th, 2010 at 10:10am
@ Christer


Quote:
I think you're confusing me with someone else but I may be wrong.

My bad (as is quite common!)--speaking before I refresh *my memory*--which is probably not a reliable function!!!!  It was VIA Chipsets (the north/south bridge) that you swore off--not AMD processors--so I was close--just the wrong specific item  ;) !

Here's the original thread:  Comparing HDDs - strange results

Here's where I started contributing to the discussion and implicating the VIA chipset:  Comparing HDDs - strange results--Reply #81

And here's where you swore off anything VIA chipsets:   Comparing HDDs - strange results--Reply #122   


Quote:
Anyway, the tests on the ABIT VA-10 based hardware have convinced me that my next motherboard will not include anything VIA.



Quote:
I thought way back when (2002 or 2003) we had that long thread--about there being issues with AMD based processors and their respective North/South bridges and drive performance issues

And--it was 2004--not 2002 or 2003--oh, well!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 29th, 2010 at 10:30am
NightOwl,
I remember that thread, well ... :-[ ... not in its entirety but fragments ... 8-) ... and I have stayed clear off VIA.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 30th, 2010 at 4:05am
A side effect that I have forgotten to mention:

I installed Windows 7 > created Image, installed Office 2007 > created Image and installed Photoshop CS4 > created Image. Prior to creating each Image, I defragmented (Windows 7 Defragmenter) the system partition and it didn't take long.

After that, I did a few tests and had reason to restore the most recent Image. I installed Acrobat 9 and defragmented the system partition. The "defragmenting" part of the process was quick but the "consolidating" part of the process took quite a long time. The second run didn't take longer than prior to restoring the Image.

It seems like the defragmenter doesn't agree with how Ghost restores the files.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on Apr 30th, 2010 at 9:03am
@ Christer


Quote:
It seems like the defragmenter doesn't agree with how Ghost restores the files.

Interesting--I'm no expert on the actual inner workings of DOS Ghost 2003, but my understanding is that if you have a FAT file system, then Ghost will create the image file with the files compiled in a defragmented state--so when you restore that image, you have a defragmented partition or HDD.

But, if the file system is NTFS--then DOS Ghost is not able to do the defragmentation-- (so this is where the question(s) lie as to what effect the restored Ghost image may effect the files!).

I know I've seen several reports of this behavior on the forum here--but, I can't remember if I've ever seen actual documentation of that Ghost *feature* or behavior.  But, folks have reported that if they run defragmention software right after the restore of a FAT partition image, it is completely defragmented!

You might look at the defragmented state just before you create an image, and then immediately restore it, and once again look at the level of defragmentation before doing any further tests--see if there is an observable difference.

There are files, like the swap file and hibernation file (plus others) that are left out of a default image file--Ghost 2003 does not know about Win7--so I wonder if there's any interaction there that could cause a problem--or if the Win7 OS is a close enough match with WinXP (the most recent OS that Ghost 2003 would have awareness of!) that it doesn't trash the Win7--because folks are successfully restoring Ghost 2003 images--it must be *okay*!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 30th, 2010 at 11:16am
NightOwl,


Quote:
You might look at the defragmented state just before you create an image, and then immediately restore it, and once again look at the level of defragmentation before doing any further tests--see if there is an observable difference.

I always "clean up" and defragment the partition prior to creating an Image. The idea is to make it as easy as possible for Ghost 2003 to create an Image without errors. (I once created an Image of a messy partition and it didn't pass the Integrity Check. - Never again!) This means that I can't do that test ... :-X ... unless I let it get "trashed".

I don't think that Ghost 2003 behaves differently on a NTFS partition. It collects the bits and pieces of the files and write them to the Image in contiguous chunks. The defragmenting takes 5-15 seconds but the consolidating/optimizing takes 13-14 minutes.

I don't know if you know of Auslogics Disk Defrag (ADD)? I downloaded it and tested:

If nothing else, as opposed to the Windows 7 Defragmenter (WD7), it has a graphic display.

ADD makes a single pass > analyze/defragment/optimize.

W7D makes an initial pass > analyze/defragment/consolidate and then makes 3-6 additional passes (much quicker than the initial pass). When comparing elapsed times, I have only "counted" the initial pass.

I restored the most recent Image (used space = ~19 GB excluding pagefile.sys and hiberfil.sys) and installed ADD.

W7D took 13 min 30 sec. A consecutive run of ADD took 30 sec.

I, again, restored the most recent Image and installed ADD. This time, I ran them in the reverse order.

ADD took 11 min 30 sec. A consecutive run of W7D took 35 sec.

It seems like ADD is a bit quicker (~15%) and you have something to watch.

The graphics in ADD indicate that they do the same job.

There's also Auslogics Disk Defrag Screen Saver which is quite nice but it only works on accounts with administrator privileges.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 30th, 2010 at 11:20am
NightOwl,


Quote:
There are files, like the swap file and hibernation file (plus others) that are left out of a default image file--Ghost 2003 does not know about Win7--so I wonder if there's any interaction there that could cause a problem--or if the Win7 OS is a close enough match with WinXP (the most recent OS that Ghost 2003 would have awareness of!) that it doesn't trash the Win7--because folks are successfully restoring Ghost 2003 images--it must be *okay*!

As I indicated in my post above, based on the difference between "used size" and "copied size", pagefile.sys and hiberfil.sys are excluded from the image, just like on XP.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on Apr 30th, 2010 at 1:31pm
@ Christer


Quote:
I restored the most recent Image (used space = ~19 GB excluding pagefile.sys and hiberfil.sys) and installed ADD.

W7D took 13 min 30 sec. A consecutive run of ADD took 30 sec.

I, again, restored the most recent Image and installed ADD. This time, I ran them in the reverse order.

ADD took 11 min 30 sec. A consecutive run of W7D took 35 sec.

So, if I'm reading your post correctly--you defragged before creating your Ghost image.

But, after the restore, you then had to do a 10-13 minute defrag again.


Quote:
I don't think that Ghost 2003 behaves differently on a NTFS partition. It collects the bits and pieces of the files and write them to the Image in contiguous chunks.

Well, that doesn't sound like what Ghost does when the partition is a FAT file system--there should be no defragging necessary after that restore!

I wonder what Ghost is doing to the NTFS partition as part of its restore leaving you with that defragging necessity?!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Apr 30th, 2010 at 4:49pm
NightOwl,


Quote:
So, if I'm reading your post correctly--you defragged before creating your Ghost image.

Yes, I always do that.


Quote:
But, after the restore, you then had to do a 10-13 minute defrag again.

No, defragging took a few (5-15) seconds (including "analyzing").

Consolidating/Optimizing took 13,5 and 11,5 minutes for the respective defragger.


Quote:
Well, that doesn't sound like what Ghost does when the partition is a FAT file system--there should be no defragging necessary after that restore!

Almost no defragging was necessary. When I installed ADD (not included in the Image), those files were potentially fragmented and also a few system files that had been written to when starting the system.


Quote:
I wonder what Ghost is doing to the NTFS partition as part of its restore leaving you with that defragging necessity?!

I think we have to focus on the difference between defragmenting and consolidating (W7D terminology) / optimizing (ADD terminology).

In ADD there's the option to only defragment or to defragment + optimize. They warn that the latter option takes longer.

Defragmenting arranges the fragments of a file into a single contiguous chunk. It can be positioned anywhere on the partition.

Next, consolidating/optimizing rearranges the defragmented files to the optimum position on the partition and all the little unused spaces between the defragmented files are "consolidated" into the free space.

When Ghost restores an Image, the defragmented files are not written to the optimum position on the partition. The defraggers rearrange them according to an algorithm that decides which files should be close to the MFT, which files should be at the front of the partition and so on. Maybe those preferences are different for W7 and Ghost 2003 knows nothing about it?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on May 1st, 2010 at 4:16am
I'm on my way to deliver the computer to its owner but I managed to get a few screen shots of Auslogics Disk Defrag. I'll post them a.s.a.p.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on May 1st, 2010 at 4:36am
Fresh-Restore-Analyzed


Defragged-Optimized


Re-Analyzed


As you can see in "Defragged-Optimized" it took Auslogics Disk Defrag 9 min 23 sec to perform the task. When restored (the Image) again and repeated using the Windows 7 defragger, it took 13 min 14 sec.

Depending on how you "bend" the figures, Auslogics was 29 % quicker than Windows 7 or Windows 7 was 41 % slower than Auslogics.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on May 1st, 2010 at 12:16pm
@ Christer

(Boy, I hate it when I hit the wrong key stroke and loose everything I have just typed  >:( !)

So, I see there are two different functions being discussed:  1.  De-fragmentation so files are together in one spot, and 2.  Optimizing (Consolidating) where the files are located on the partition for best performance.

Do you know if Win7 uses the same *Pre-fetch* optimizing for loading sequence in WinXP?

I see that the OS partition has used approx. 20 GB already--just installing Win7 and basic programs for general use?  Good to note how much space is needed--a lot more than WinXP in the past!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on May 2nd, 2010 at 2:05pm
NightOwl,


Quote:
Do you know if Win7 uses the same *Pre-fetch* optimizing for loading sequence in WinXP?

No, I don't and I no longer have the computer to check for a "prefetch folder". Going Google on "Windows 7 prefetch" gives "a ton" of hits indicating that it does.


Quote:
I see that the OS partition has used approx. 20 GB already--just installing Win7 and basic programs for general use?

I took notes. The sizes are net, excluding pagefile.sys and hiberfil.sys (installed RAM affects those files):

Windows 7 + drivers + updates to current = ~13,2 GB

+ Office 2007 (Access, Excel, Powerpoint, Publisher and Word) = ~16,4 GB

+ Photoshop CS4 (both 32-bit and 64-bit) = ~16,9 GB

+ Acrobat 9 Standard = ~17,9 GB

+ Nero 7 (Nero Burning Rom and Nero Express only, not the full crapload) = ~18,5 GB

Initially (with 8 GB RAM) pagefile.sys was 8 GB and hiberfil.sys was 6 GB > You can add ~14 GB to the above sizes to get used space.

I don't know why hiberfil.sys is 6 GB. I always thought it equals RAM-size. That file couldn't be moved but I created a split pagefile.sys with the biggest chunk on E: with only 2 GB on C: to fall back on if the other drive fails.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by NightOwl on May 10th, 2010 at 9:57am
@ Christer

Well, my computer officially died!

I'm using a borrowed laptop--and looking to build a new desktop!

Could you offer your opinion on the system you just built with the motherboard you mentioned in this thread?  Did the build go well--and do you think the MB is a good one based on your limited interactions?

Other questions:

1.  Do you know what case you used?

2.  What power supply--watts and brand?

3.  What CPU?

4.  What video card?

5.  RAM--brand and how much?

Any specific do's or don't's you learned along the way?

Thanks for any feedback!

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on May 10th, 2010 at 6:23pm
NightOwl,
sorry to hear about your problems but nothing triggers a new build like hardware failure ... 8-) ... !

This is the hardware that I used:

Antec P183 and Corsair HX650. This may be a bit "overdone". The case is big with the PSU at the bottom in its own compartment. If you use a lot of HDD's, there's plenty of room. Personally, I would probably opt for Antec Sonata Plus 550 which is slightly smaller but still big and powerful (PSU) enough. (Both PSU's are modular which is cool and practical.)

Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD4 but if you will run two graphics cards in CrossFire/SLI mode, it only supports 1x16 or 2x8, not 2x16.

Gigabyte ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB which was the component that received the least attention and "research". The focus of this computer is "Photoshopping" and I choose a very basic graphics card. Maybe you can find more "bang for the bucks" with another one and if you're a gamer, it's inadequate. The primary reason for choosing it was its passive cooling = silent.

Intel Core i7 860 Quad – 2,80 (3,46) GHz is "a notch down" in price when comparing the hotter 8xx and 9xx processors but it is really fast. I thought about 9xx and triple channel memory but I couldn't justify the higher price.

Corsair CMX8GX3M4A1333C9 which is an 8 GB kit. Photoshop eats RAM and the owner wanted a lot of it. Maybe a 4 GB kit Corsair TW3X4G1333C9A would suffice for most applications. (Also, a 32-bit application, even if running in a 64-bit environment, can only use less than 4 GB so, 8 GB might be a waste of resources.) As you can see, I have chosen the speed and timings officially supported according to Intel, no overclocking.

3 x 1 TB Hitachi P7K1000.C was chosen. I have used Hitachi Deskstar in most of my builds and no problems. They "feel" faster than the corresponding Seagate (the previous generations, at least) but I have not done any serious bench tests.

The main drive with C: = 100 GB and D: = 900 GB. (Don't make C: too small, Windows 7 64 is huge.)

A secondary drive with E: = 500 GB for the pagefile (Windows) + the scratch file (Photoshop) and F: = 500 GB for "what ever". A much smaller drive would suffice but with current prices, the owner wanted three of the same. If the main drive fails, he's up and running on the (former) secondary drive a few minutes and a Ghost restore later. The pagefile and the scratch file are configured to "fall back" on C: if E: is not present.

A backup drive with G: = 900 MB (backup of D:) and H: = 100 MB (Ghost 2003 images of C:) in an ICY BOX IB-138SK-B-II which is a very nice all aluminium rack.

Finally a Sony NEC Optiarc AD-7243S-0B and of course, a floppy drive for my Ghost boot disks.

I hope the links work because I have no time to test. It's way past my bed time ... :-X ... !

I can't think of any "problems" that we haven't discussed already, the build and setup was straight forward. Maybe, if you don't plan on RAIDing, don't install the Marvel RAID driver. It installs itself in the RUN section of the registry and starts every time. Windows 7 doesn't approve and pops up a window, asking permission to let it run. The registry can be edited to prevent auto running and it can still be run from "programs". Maybe the Gigabyte RAID drivers can be avoided as well but they are labeled SATA/RAID. I believe that you can omit those too since W7 SATA drivers seem to work just fine.

One more thing, at my place, W7 and IE8 connected to the LAN without a trace of trouble. I have "real" broadband but my friend has ADSL with a modem. That modem works alright with XP but extremely randomly with W7. A new modem has been ordered but has yet to arrive, so, we still don't know if the new modem is the solution but I think so. The owner is away on a trip which means that some time next week, maybe, I will know.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on May 11th, 2010 at 2:45am
The AMD version (a "notch down" in performance but also in price) would be:

Gigabyte GA-790XTA-UD4 with the same limitations regarding CrossFire (doesn't support SLI) as the Intel board

AMD Phenom2 X4 945 – 3,0 GHz which is a "notch down" in thermal design specs (125W > 95W) from the Black Edition

Corsair CMX8GX3M4B1333C9 (8 GB kit) or Corsair TW3X4G1333C9A (4 GB kit)

(Take note that memory modules are specifically optimized for AMD or Intel. Some will work on both platforms but not all.)

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on May 16th, 2010 at 10:12am

Quote:
One more thing, at my place, W7 and IE8 connected to the LAN without a trace of trouble. I have "real" broadband but my friend has ADSL with a modem. That modem works alright with XP but extremely randomly with W7. A new modem has been ordered but has yet to arrive, so, we still don't know if the new modem is the solution but I think so. The owner is away on a trip which means that some time next week, maybe, I will know.

The new modem solved the problems. It is an "all in one" box with one phone line in, two out, four broadband connectors and wireless. Before, there were two boxes "in series", a black box with phone line in-out, and a modem with phone line in and broadband out.

The owner is very pleased with his new BOAC (Box Of Assembled Components) ... 8-) ... !

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Jun 9th, 2010 at 3:54pm
NightOwl,
when you find the time ... 8-) ... what did you end up with?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by proximityinfo3 on Jul 13th, 2010 at 3:54am
It's even easier in Win7, Brian.  Click the Start button and select the username link at the top of the right column.  Links to all your user folders are there in one place.  Right-click on any one of them, select 'Properties', select the 'Location' tab, and move it to a new location. 

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Jul 13th, 2010 at 4:32am
@ proximityinfo3

Thank you. That is easy.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by proximityinfo3 on Jul 17th, 2010 at 12:33am
Don't do this or Win7 will create a 100 MB System Reserved Partition which you don't need and is a pain. Create all your partitions before you let the Win7 DVD near your computer. This way the partitions will be cylinder aligned and compatible with Ghost 2003. When you install Win7 to your chosen partition, click Advanced and click Format. Sometimes Win7 won't install unless you do this Format.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Jul 17th, 2010 at 1:22am
@ proximityinfo3

Why are you quoting other people's posts without acknowledgment? It doesn't make sense.

Or are you spamming?

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Dan Goodell on Jul 17th, 2010 at 1:56am
Do you think it's a real person, Brian?  Perhaps it's some kind of script or robot.  Doesn't seem to have a real purpose yet, but maybe some spammer experimenting or tweaking some code before "putting it into production"?

Profile says only 5 posts, all in the last 4 days.  Here are all five, with corresponding links to the original sources:


http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1266475919/21#21
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1266475919/4#4

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1170184062/167#167
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1170184062/2#2

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1265924057/66#66
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1265924057/3#3

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1265924057/68#68
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1265924057/1#1

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1276041214/19#19
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1276041214/2#2


Note they all repeat in the original thread, always one of the thread's earliest posts, and they never add any original text--which makes me wonder if it's really a human posting.


Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Brian on Jul 17th, 2010 at 3:21am
Dan,

This reminds me of a Simpson's episode.....

Lisa: Aunt Selma, this may be presumptuous, but have you ever considered artificial insemination?
Homer: I dunno, you gotta be pretty desperate to make it with a robot.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by plainolguy on Aug 5th, 2011 at 3:15pm
Hi guys,  I see this hasn`t been discussed in some time but I wanted to relay my experience with multiple HDDs on some motherboards.
I too have a Gigabyte board and the only way I could get my computer to run properly 24/7 was to hook up each SATA drive and reboot.  I then observed it`s recognized location in BIOS and changed it to the location I had chosen to start.  For example, it just so happens that 2:1 is my first hard drive because 1:1 is for CD/DVD drive.

Another problem I had was a Seagate 160G drive I hated to leave idle after I had bought a larger one.  This (old Seagate) drive was advertised as needing no jumpers and the Seagate manual that came with it did not even discuss master/slave jumper configurations.  Boy, did it give me a fit!  For years!  It is now retired.

Finally, I think Windows gets its dress blown up over its face sometimes and just gets flustered.  For example at this time I have my primary/master harddrive seperated into 4 partitions with C drive being the first.  But disk management chooses to show C drive last on the disk management UI.  When I Ghost my C drive using 8.2, 8.2 recognizes C drive as being the first partition and the other 3 as being hidden as it should because that is the way I have it set up, as a multiboot harddrive.  Thanks Dan Goodell and many others for your information that helped me to make this happen.

Anyway, from now on I have decided to arrange my harddrives according to what BIOS will show as opposed to the manual (which in my case didn`t agree with my BIOS) or Windows.  Cheers!

plain

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by Christer on Aug 6th, 2011 at 1:40am
On my system, seen in Ghost 2003, 1:1 has WinXP installed, 1:2 has Win7 installed and 1:3 holds the data. 2:x are partitions for ghost images.

In Windows, C: is always the partition from which the system is booted. The other partition with an operating system becomes D:. E: is always the data partition.

Title: Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Post by plainolguy on Aug 6th, 2011 at 6:15am
Ah, well to clarify what I had written earlier, by stating 1:1 I meant my first master/slave SATA connections.  I no longer have IDE for CD player or hard disks.  Sorry I wasn`t clear.  But as far as the C partition, I actually can have up to 4 on the first hard disk because of my multiboot configuration.  3 of those are the ones I had stated that are hidden.  I use GAG on a floppy to change from one to another.

Anyway,  I have to study this thread some more because I am thinking of purchasing Windows 7 and want a Ghost solution for backing up to an external drive and this seems to point me in the right direction.  Thanks guys for all your hard work in figuring out how to do this.  I just wish 8.2 would work.  It is so easy.

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