To All

I can not recall if I have seen a discussion as to how Ghost works with the new Win8.

Does Win8 act the same way as Win7 as far as how the installation sets up the boot partition, etc.--or does Win8 have a totally new boot setup?

I'm asking this in response to this question in another thread: 


ITTech32 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2013 at 11:57am:

Will the version I have clone windows 8?

@ NightOwl

Win8 is much the same as Win7 except the SRP is 350 MB instead of 100 MB. The Win8 SRP is larger as it contains winre.wim, the Recovery Environment. Another difference with Win8 is the SRP and the OS partition both contain bootmgr.  With Win7, bootmgr is only in the SRP.

You can install Win8 to avoid getting a SRP and winre.wim will be in the OS partition.

I've imaged and restored the Win8 OS partition with Ghost 2003. Restored the image to the same partition.

I'm sure I read that windows 8 has an entirely new file syetem called RTS ( Resilient File System), so that's why I wasn't sure as Ghost can only image/clone Fat/NTFS?? I think I read that if Ghost doesn't recognise the file system it will do a sector-by-sector copy?



Another question: Why did Symantec discontinue ghost?

@ ITTech32


Quote:

RTS ( Resilient File System),

Interesting. 

Here's some references I found:  Building the next generation file system for Windows: ReFS  (which stands for Resilient File System)

ReFS--From Wikipedia

Important items to note:


Quote:

In Windows 8, ReFS will be introduced only as part of Windows Server 8,

and,


Quote:

built on the foundations of NTFS, so it maintains crucial compatibility

Brian wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Win8 is much the same as Win7 except the SRP is 350 MB instead of 100 MB. I've imaged and restored the Win8 OS partition with Ghost 2003.

@ ITTech32

Are you using Windows Server 8?

If Ghost 2003 will successfully image Win8, then you should be able to do the same with the Ghost program that's part of Ghost Solution Suite.

We have discussed issues associated with using Ghost and Win7 in the past.  Here's a couple references:

Ghost 2003 and Windows 7 - No dual booting

are ghost 2003, 8x and 11x compatible with winows 7 ?

Based on what Brian said above--you can use the same techniques with Win8 as one would with Win7.


Quote:

Another question: Why did Symantec discontinue ghost?

Symantec has done this to a lot of programs over the years.  The original developers of Ghost, Binary Research, in New Zealand, sold the program to Symantec.  Big corporations do not have the same personal passion to develop and maintain quality software as do the small, startup operations that are trying to make a name for themselves.

Symantec continued the development of Ghost as long as the profits were there.  There's a lot of speculation that the PC as we know it is on the way out because of the onset of the hand held smart phones, tablets, etc., and so the profits from the PC market look dimmer gazing into the future.  Symantec apparently has developed a replacement backup and restore software to replace Ghost--and decided to not continue with the Ghost name going forward:   Symantec System Recovery 2013 Desktop Edition

No I haven't used Server 8 yet, although it's something I am wanting to have a play with.

Has anyone ever successfully cloned Linux?

It seams sad that Symantec would discontinue a product that's widely used and still loved my many people worldwide. I read  that the makers of ghost knew how to make ghost compatible with I think it was Mac OS X, but unfortunately they pulled funding for this. There are a lot of companies and school establishments that still use ghost on a regular basis. Symantec should of put more effort into updating ghost and giving ghost new features

The problem is now is that there are so much free software available for cloning/imaging it's hard for ghost to keep up; that being said, like I said before if ghost updated their software regularly then I think it had a fighting chance. I do wish Syamtec would stop pushing this crap system recovery software on people and concentrate on the fantastic products they have!


I don't believe that handhelds or tablets will ever take over the PC. PC's are getting faster, smaller and technology is rapidly changing. The problem with handhelds is getting the data off them, to which you either have to email yourself, or use software like dropbox or box.

@ ITTech32

Off topic but the TeraByte imaging apps can backup Windows, Linux and  Mac OS X.

ITTech32 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 5:19am:

I don't believe that handhelds or tablets will ever take over the PC. [...] The problem with handhelds is getting the data off them, to which you either have to email yourself, or use software like dropbox or box.

There's no problem at all.  I can't speak for Apple products (since I don't and never will use them), but with Android and Windows tablets it's really not any more difficult than with regular PCs or laptops.

Many tablets (as well as Android smartphones) have micro-SD slots, and copying files to/from a SD card is just as simple as copying laptop files to a flash drive or SD card.

Most Android devices (both phones and tablets) can also transfer files back and forth to a PC via USB cable.

Most tablets should also be able to connect to your home wifi network, so moving files back and forth via wifi is even simpler.  I regularly listen to about a dozen audio and video netcasts weekly, usually on my phone.  I'll download the mp3 or mp4 files on my PC (because it's a lot quicker with a real keyboard), then transfer them to my phone via wifi.  You can manage the wifi transfers from either end--I recommend ES File Explorer to manage transfers at the phone/tablet, or Airdroid to manage transfers from the Windows PC/laptop side.

@ Brian Good software, although it's not free :(

I can definitely speak for Apple products and they're a pain in the a**!

The big problem is when companies lock down their devices like Apple do. I have a Nokia WP and I think that is extremely locked down, where you have to use Microsoft's 'Zune' to put any multimedia on to it.

This is why I would chose Android over Apple IOS. Tablets are becoming more useful although I can't see them taking over PC just yet.

ITTech32 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 5:21am:

The big problem is when companies lock down their devices like Apple do.

That's just one of many reasons I'll never own an Apple product.  We're way off topic, though, so this isn't the place to go into the plethora of other reasons.

Back to the topic, like Brian I have successfully used Ghost 2003 to image/restore a Win8 OS partition.  I only use Ghost from DOS, never Windows, and follow the same general principles as with Win7--i.e., "generalize" the BCD and pre-create partitions to avoid the SRP.

Note that I've only used MBR-style partition layouts, though, and have very little experience with UEFI/GPT layouts.  That's worth qualifying because many pre-installed Win8 systems are coming from the factory with UEFI/GPT layouts, and I would be surprised if any DOS-based utilities can read GPT.

@ Brian


Brian wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 4:54pm:

Off topic but the TeraByte imaging apps can backup Windows, Linux andMac OS X.

Au contraire--if you had not said something, I would have!

I really think the TeraByte's group of Image for Windows, DOS, and Linux is the new *Ghost* in terms of quality, continued development, and compatibility with new hardware and software--just under a different name!  And they actually offer customer service, and answer inquiries about the use of their products.

As I mentioned in another thread, it was bad when Symantec no longer allowed LiveUpdate access to the Archive server in order to update a fresh install of Ghost 2003, but the real *last straw* was when they took down access to the *http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/......* server that had all the FAQs regarding issues and useage of the Ghost 2003 product--and all my radified forum links have now gone stale because of it.

This represents the worst of anything approaching *Customer Service*.  I can understand no longer offering *live support*--but to remove access for online support from previous years of creating useful FAQs with all sorts of support that didn't cost them anything in terms of *live support*.  Symantec was happy to take my money in support of their development of a great quality software product--but, they certainly have no moral compass when it comes to giving back to their previous customers who supported them!

@ ITTech32


ITTech32 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 5:21am:

Good software, although it's not free

Hmmm.....bad response!  I'm not against free software--use it all the time when it's available and appropriate.  Was the Ghost Solution Suite that you praise so much *free*?

But my sense has been that really complex software that does critical manipulations tend not to be the *best* in terms of reliability, bug-free (or least not too many), features (that work properly), etc.--I've seen too many posts complaining how their *free* software has let them down!

I think if you want quality software with ongoing development and support, one should be willing to pay a reasonable price for the quality they are getting.  Just my two cents on that one....

Dan Goodell wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 1:38pm:

That's worth qualifying because many pre-installed Win8 systems are coming from the factory with UEFI/GPT layouts, and I would be surprised if any DOS-based utilities can read GPT.

Out of interest I created a 10 GB partition on a 640 GB GPT disk. As expected Ghost 2003 couldn't see the partition. It just saw the OxEE "partition". (610 GB)

I've also installed my OS in MBR mode as I want to multi-boot with BIBM and BIBM doesn't work as a boot manager in UEFI mode. You can still use the BIBM CD however but you have to temporarily disable UEFI and Secure Boot in the UEFI BIOS.

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/kb/article.php?id=572

NightOwl wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 1:51pm:

Hmmm.....bad response!I'm not against free software--use it all the time when it's available and appropriate.Was the Ghost Solution Suite that you praise so much *free*?

No It's paid... Even though I'm a massive fan of ghost, I can't help but wonder off looking for other alternatives that has more support and supports newer hardware etc.

@ Brian:
Why are you using GPT?? Firstly, I didn't know windows could do it, and to be honest...why would you want to unless you're moving a large amount of data?

@ ITTech32


ITTech32 wrote on Aug 4^th, 2013 at 5:03am:

Why are you using GPT?

It was a test computer. Just messing around. BIBM can create GPT disks. And back to MBR disks.

Let me jump right to the end.....

I've used Ghost 11.5, on a Boot CD or Flash Drive to back up all Windows OS's from 98 to Win8.1 with no difference.  It just works.  An associate of mine tells me it also works for Unix, Zenix, Linux, whatever.....

As for the later versions that run under Windows.... I have no experience there.
Having your Backup/Restore program on your hard drive does NO good at all when that drive has gone up in fire and smoke. ::) ;) :'(
So I've always run Ghost from DOS Bootable media.

Cheers Mates!
8-)

I do like 11.5 although it's slow backing up. It took a good hour to backup my 1 partition with over 40gb of data, whereas Clonezilla can do it in half that, and clonezilla throttles the PC to get best performance.

ITTech32 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 5:07am:

I do like 11.5 although it's slow backing up. It took a good hour to backup my 1 partition with over 40gb of data, whereas Clonezilla can do it in half that,

As you know the hardware matters too. My OS partition (on a SSD) contains 30 GB of data and imaging takes 2.5 minutes. Image size is 14 GB.

Yes, hardware plays a bit part in this. Wow, that's some speed!

Is there much difference in speed between Ghost.exe ( DOS) and ghost32 (WinPe)

@ Brian


Brian wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 5:43am:

My OS partition (on a SSD) contains 30 GB of data and imaging takes 2.5 minutes.

That's incredible speed!  Is that using TeraByte or Symantec imaging software--or both?

Refresh my memory--what is the total SSD size that you have installed?

And, is this on a system that is *designed* for SSD, or an older system?  Are there compatibility issues if SSD is installed on an older system, and/or does SSD need a system that is designed to work with SSD?

What I'm getting at--does the *pipeline* for data transfer handle those rates on an older system, or does the system have to be designed differently to handle those speeds with SSD? 

Or, is that data transfer rate just the difference between a spinning HDD disk vs solid state storage?

Can I assume that you see and feel that speed difference when doing everyday tasks in Windows as well?

@ ITTech32

I tried Ghost 2003 and the image creation time was 7:48. (Fast Compression) The image was 14.3 GB (one .GHO and seven .GHS files). I only have the ver 8 ghost32.exe but I'll try that if you like.

Of interest was Ghost 2003 could see my 1.8 TB backup partition as a Source but not as a Destination. I had to create the image in a 30 GB partition on the backup HD. Ghost 2003 reported the 1.8 TB partition size as -219424 MB. We've seen reports about Ghost 2003 having issues with HDs larger than 1 TB.

Edit... Using ghost32.exe from a WinPE. Imaging took 9:22.

Using IFL (Image for Linux) from a boot disk took 2:23.

@ NightOwl

I've made some changes to my OS since I recorded the figures in Reply #16..

The SSD Win8 partition is ....
Total Size 58.5 GB, Free Space 30.9 GB (so Used is 27.6 GB)

I bought my first SSD (120 GB) over a year ago and installed it into a Dell computer bought in 2006 (SATA II MB). The speed difference was noted instantly. Faster OS loading times, apps opening faster and running faster. Installing a SSD is the best upgrade you can do for your computer.

I'm advised that although benchmarking is better with a SATA III MB, practically you won't feel the difference when using a SATA III SSD on a SATA II MB as opposed to a SATA III MB.

I built my current computer in November last year. Asus Sabertooth MB, 16 GB RAM, 240 GB SSD. I also have two 2 TB HDs in the computer. One (WD Black) is connected to a SATA III port and the other (WD Green) to a SATA II port. The latter is the backup drive.

For testing I've copied the Win8 SSD partition to the first HD (SATA III connected). So identical OS on two drives.

From the Boot Menu Win8 on the SSD loads in 13 seconds.
From the Boot Menu Win8 on the HD loads in 48 seconds.

The Photoshop trial on the SSD opens in 2.5 seconds.
The Photoshop trial on the HD opens in 17 seconds.

Image creation time for the Win8 partition on the SSD is 2:16. (Using IFW) Image size is 13.5 GB.
Image creation time for the Win8 partition on the HD is 3:38. (Using IFW) Image size is 13.5 GB.
(Image creation time for the Win8 partition on the SSD is 2:04 when imaged to the HD connected to the SATA III port)

As I mentioned, I installed a SATA III SSD into a 6 year old computer with a SATA II MB and the result was very impressive. I'd expect a similar result with even older computers.

I'm advised that imaging from SSD to SSD is even faster than SSD to HD.

@ Brian

Okay!  Now I'm drooling and salivating all over the floor like my black labs waiting to be fed, and I'm not getting the food to them fast enough!

@ NightOwl

A friend has ten different SSDs. He says they are all "the same" and to buy the cheapest one. I'm not sure about that. I have Intel 520 series drives and my neighbour has Samsungs. We are pleased with our choices. I'd expect a 120 GB SSD would be quite large enough for you as you only need to put OS on the drive. You can put your data on a HD.

@Brian

To be honest, 7:48 (Fast Compression) isn't bad and I wouldn't be disappointed..

I would like to see ghost8 though!

I have version 11.5.1 and  I was taking a image of my backup partition and that for me seemed painfully slow.

I was surprised that ghost from WinPe took longer, and I'm guessing this is still Ghost 2003? This is kind of why I prefer to use DOS rather than Winpe, even though DOS is an absolute pain with drivers.

I have heard a lot of good things about Terabye software!

@ ITTech32

Sorry for the confusion. Ghost32.exe was version 8.

I just ran it again, 9:11. Slow on my computer.


ITTech32 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 5:10am:

I have heard a lot of good things about Terabye software!

And great value. The TeraByte Bundle includes BIBM, IFW, IFD, IFL and TBOSDT. Licensed for three home computers.

Some things you can do with TBOSDT....

access partitions that are hidden from the OS and even access partitions that aren't in the current partition table to perform the following....
view, copy, create and delete files and folders
edit text files
install boot code
create and expand virtual drives
copy and restore sectors
run certain DOS apps
convert MBR to GPT disk (and GPT to MBR)
run tbosdt scripts, (eg change Windows drive letters, Save/Restore registry, convert a physical machine to a virtual machine, allow Windows to boot from a USB HD,  remove installed drivers, change HAL)
add, delete and edit registry keys and work with hive files
install Windows drivers to a non booted OS (eg Storage controller drivers)
partitioning procedures such as create, delete, resize, format, slide, set active, edit disk signature

@ Brian


Brian wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 3:15am:

A friend has ten different SSDs. He says they are all "the same" and to buy the cheapest one. I'm not sure about that. I have Intel 520 series drives and my neighbour has Samsungs.

So, I've done a little bit of looking around at various articles about SSDs.  I'm sure it's not exhaustive by any means. 

Ran across this reference:  LifeHacker's:  The Complete Guide To Solid State Drives

Down in the comments section, one poster makes this recommendation:


Quote:

-> Make sure that your SATA controller is set to AHCI mode (see BIOS)

Do you use that setting for your SSD set up? 

That setting in the BIOS can be a source of preventing Ghost 2003 in DOS from loading and functioning properly.  If one is using the AHCI setting and they want to use Ghost 2003, then it is often necessary to boot the system to the BIOS utility, set the SATA controller to *Compatibility* or *Legacy* mode, perform the Ghost 2003 procedure, and the re-boot to the BIOS utility, and re-set the controller back to the ACHI mode before booting back to Windows.

Any thoughts based on your experience?

More and more, it looks like the old Ghost 2003 is reaching its *end of life* status.  I don't know about the Ghost Solution Suite with Ghost v11.5.x being able to work with the ACHI mode active.

Do the TeraByte products have any issues with that--esecially the Image for DOS version?

@ NightOwl

I've never used Compatibility mode in the BIOS. I've always used AHCI mode with computers containing SATA HDs. Ghost 2003 boot disks have worked, as well as other DOS apps. No issues at all.

The Dell computer I referred to above was running WinXP and the SSD made a big performance difference. There is no TRIM in WinXP so I'm not sure what happens long term. Maybe this helps.

http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State-Drives-SSD/SSD-Tool-free-space-trimmer/td-p/51198

I just checked a fresh Win 8.1 install (on my SSD) with no drivers or applications installed. It loads in 8 seconds (from the boot menu). Fast.

Edit... The Intel SSD Toolbox app runs in WinXP (Intel drives only).

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?DwnldID=18455

Ubuntu 13.04 loads in 6 seconds. Ubuntu supports TRIM.

@ Brian


Quote:

I've never used Compatibility mode in the BIOS. I've always used AHCI mode with computers containing SATA HDs. Ghost 2003 boot disks have worked, as well as other DOS apps. No issues at all.

I was helping a friend who was using Ghost 2003 with two laptops--one a Toshiba and the other an HP--and they are about 3-4 years old.

Both have only a SATA controller onboard, so even though it's tough to find specs on the components installed--I presume both the HDD and optical drive have to be SATA based.

So, I looked at the BIOS on the Toshiba, and it had the option to use Compatibility mode or AHCI--it was set to AHCI.  We were using a USB HDD that is a FAT 32, DOS bootable.  Pressed the appropriate F-key to bring up the boot menu during the POST sequence.  Selected the USB HDD as the boot device and it booted to DOS--no problems--even loaded a DOS mouse driver that allowed me to use a USB attached mouse in the DOS session!

So, apparently the BIOS was presenting to the DOS OS the USB port as if it were a PS/2 serial port.

I had full access to the USB HDD without loading any separate DOS USB drivers.  I have seen posts on the forum about this behavior, but this is the first time I've had a chance to see it for myself.  It appeared that the BIOS was taking care of everything, and it was USB 2.0 speeds.

So, thinking back more, my comment about problems with the AHCI mode may have to do when trying to boot from the optical drive to DOS, and loading the USB DOS drivers during the boot up and trying to access the USB HDD in that manner.

The HP laptop was remarkable in that it had almost no options to select using the BIOS setup utility!  But, it too supported booting from the external USB HDD that was bootable to DOS, offered full access to the USB HDD at USB 2.0 speeds, and also had mouse support for the DOS loaded driver for the USB attached mouse.

Interesting.......

@ Brian


Quote:

The Dell computer I referred to above was running WinXP and the SSD made a big performance difference.

Regarding migrating to a SSD, do I remember correctly that you posted an outline of how you setup your SSD prior to installing WinXP and/or Win7?

If so, could you point to that link......?

@ ITTech32


ITTech32 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 5:10am:

I was surprised that ghost from WinPe took longer, and I'm guessing this is still Ghost 2003?

The Windows base Ghost32.exe did not come out until Ghost v8.xx.  Ghost 2003 was most equivalent to Ghost v7.5.  There never was a 32-bit version of Ghost for Ghost 2003, so I doubt that what you are using would be *Ghost 2003*.

When you load Ghost32 in Windows or WinPE, the top bar on the Ghost interface should display the Ghost version number--I'm betting it says v11.5.1, or something close to that based on the version of Ghost Solution Suite you have said you are using.

@ NightOwl


NightOwl wrote on Aug 10^th, 2013 at 10:02am:

Regarding migrating to a SSD, do I remember correctly that you posted an outline of how you setup your SSD prior to installing WinXP and/or Win7?

I can't recall the post but this is what I did with the Dell computer...

Made sure the SSD was HD0 in the BIOS
Installed BIBM to the empty SSD and made sure Align on 2048 Sectors was selected in Settings
Copied the WinXP and Win7 partitions from the old HD to the SSD
Set up Boot Items in BIBM
Finished

I built my current computer late last year. I installed BIBM to the empty SSD and made sure Align on 2048 Sectors was selected in Settings. Win8 cost me $40 so it was the first OS to be installed. The installation of any OS (using BIBM) is standardized and is described here...

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/howto/index.htm

...but in summary...

From BIBM, create a primary partition on the SSD. Your choice of size.
Create a Boot Item
Attempt to boot the Boot Item. This will fail as there is no OS installed but it sets the partition Active and puts your selected partitions in the partition table for that item.
Press Ctrl-Alt-Del and boot from the installation media. I used Win8 on a flash drive as it's faster than a DVD install. The entire Win8 install took 8 minutes.
Finished

Other OS are installed using the same method. SSDs are no different from HDs regarding partitioning and installing OS. Same method for both. If you don't want to use BIBM, install the OS in the same fashion as you would with a HD.

One point I forgot to mention. With the Dell, WinXP on the HD was cylinder aligned so I used BIBM to make the copied partition 2048 sector aligned.

@ Brian


Quote:

Installed BIBM to the empty SSD and made sure Align on 2048 Sectors was selected in Settings

Is that selection because it's a SSD drive or because you have Win7 or Win8 installed, or because..........?

I know we had a discussion of this in another thread, but can't remember the reason it's important   :-[ .

@ NightOwl


NightOwl wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

Is that selection because it's a SSD drive or because you have Win7 or Win8 installed, or because..........?

Because it's a SSD.

But even on my HDs, I use the 2048 sector aligned choice even though it doesn't provide a performance enhancement on a HD. I'm just used to it. I've stopped using cylinder aligned partitions.

Brian wrote on Aug 8^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

There is no TRIM in WinXP so I'm not sure what happens long term

The latest BIBM, ver 1.20, allows you to TRIM partitions and unallocated Free Space on SSDs.


Quote:

The TRIM operation is used to notify the SSD drive of unused sectors within the selected partition area that it can use for itself. 1.   On the desktop, click Partition Work. 2.   Use the Bus drop-down to select BIOS (direct). 3.   In the Partitions list, select the partition or free space to which you wish to apply TRIM, then click Trim under Actions. 4.   Click Continue on the notice displayed and the TRIM procedure will be run (progress will be displayed). Click Close when finished.

.

@ Brian

I got the impression that the TRIM programming was automated in Win7 and Win8--nothing to set or do. 

So, if one is doing it manually, how often would that be recommended?

Any options for automations?

@ NightOwl


NightOwl wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:07am:

I got the impression that the TRIM programming was automated in Win7 and Win8--nothing to set or do.

Correct. But you could use the BIBM TRIM on WinXP, perhaps weekly. Also you could TRIM when deleting a partition.

Another impressive feature in the latest IFW. The /wco switch.


Quote:

Use this option when restoring or copying to write only the changed sectors to the target drive (target will be read to compare). Useful in cases where a large portion of the data is the same and it’s desirable to reduce wear on the target drive (e.g. restoring image to SSD drive)

I'll be using this for all my restores to the SSD.

I'm sure I was told that cloning from an HDD to an SSD was a bad idea...

@ ITTech32

Who told you that? It is a common practice now. Works perfectly if you know what you are doing.

If there is a large difference in drive sizes....

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/kb/article.php?id=554

@ Brian


Brian wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 1:41am:

Another impressive feature in the latest IFW. The /wco switch.

The switch is only available with IFW?  Not IFD or IFL?

So, when restoring the OS on a SSD drive using IFW, I'm presuming you have to be booted to an alternate OS (i.e. WinPE).  Restoring an image and overwriting the *active* OS partition that is running IFW, just like the Windows based Ghost and Ghost32, is not allowed--correct?

@ NightOwl


NightOwl wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 9:16am:

Not IFD or IFL?

You are correct. It's available for all three apps.


NightOwl wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 9:16am:

Restoring an image and overwriting the *active* OS partition that is running IFW, just like the Windows based Ghost and Ghost32, is not allowed--correct?

No, you can overwrite that partition. Say the OS partition contains 30 GB of data and 500 MB of data has changed in the last week. You have created a full backup last week and created a differential backup yesterday. If you restore the differential image without using /wco then 30 GB of data will be written to the drive.  If you restore using /wco then 500 MB of data will be written to the drive. People are still worried that SSDs will wear out due to too much writing to the drive even though "too much" may be decades away. This is the reason for the switch. The restore isn't any faster because 30 GB of data still has to be read to decide what has changed.

Did I misunderstand your question?


Quote:

I'm presuming you have to be booted to an alternate OS (i.e. WinPE).

Yes, a WinPE, IFD or IFL. Depending on your computer, one app may be faster than the others. In my current computer an IFW restore is slightly faster than an IFL restore. An IFD restore takes about 20% longer. Others have reported different figures.

@ Brian


Quote:

Did I misunderstand your question?

Hmmmm.....maybe.


Quote:

Restoring an image and overwriting the *active* OS partition that is running IFW

If one is running IFW from the SSD OS, and you wish to restore a previous image made of the OS of the SSD drive, you can not restore the image using that instance of IFW being run from the SSD OS--i.e. the OS the is currently in use.  (I think I threw you off with the phrase "*active* OS partition"--should have said *OS currently in use*.)

One would have to boot IFW from WinPE to restore that OS image to the SSD.

Did that make more sense?

@ NightOwl


NightOwl wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

One would have to boot IFW from WinPE to restore that OS image to the SSD.

Yes. We're on the same page now.

Or use IFD/IFL. You can have IFW, IFD or IFL installed in their own partition on the HD so you can boot to that partition and run a restore of the Windows OS partition. A boot disk isn't needed except if you have a HD failure.

I did some tests with restoring a Win8 image. I used an app called SSDlife to determine how much data was being written to the SSD.

Restore without using /wco... 26.0 GB written.

Restore with using /wco.......... 0.2 GB written.

Less writes should be good for SSD longevity.

/wco was discussed in Reply #37.