Thanks, Pleo.

Some thots:

. they say: "" - and - ""

that's an "image". .. which is the most important part of ghost & any imaging prgm .. a good thing.

. they say "(system drive, of course) "

I find it strange they felt the need to automate this most basic of functions/decisions: determining which drives to back up and where to store those back-ups.

We back-up our system drive (where Windows resides) and storage the image on a separate hard drive (if we have one), or a CD or DVD disc.

. I notice they use the word "" a lot. Point #2 above would indicate they are trying to make Ghost as easy to use as possible. Ease-of-use is fine, long as they don't sacrifice RELIABILITY in the process .. see point #5 below.

. They say: "."

They seem to be adapting the position similar to Windows "System Restore" with these "recovery points". We have always felt the need to create an image before installing a major service pack, or things like that, or maybe updating drivers.

So again, this seems to be automating practices we have always been using.

. Re:  .

I don't like the idea of encryption, cuz it infers DE-cryption at some point, which is just another place for something to go wrong.

You probably know that my #1 priority (with regard to images) is RELIABILITY. I need to know I can restore my image should something go wrong with my operating system or hard drive.

If you put a turbo-charger on a car, or have it steered by a new satellite-tracking device, so the car will drive itself while you're sleeping (making it "easier" to use) .. those new features might be oool, but they are simply one more thing that can go wrong, which tends to DECREASE realiability.

. Re: " "

reducing the amount of storage space used is not a major factor with the size of today's hard drives, which, the last time I checked, were at 500-GB:

http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/site/en/menuitem.8f07a3c3d3a7a12d92b86b31bac4f0...

Rad

I agree that bringing the (back-up) power of imaging to the masses is a good thing .. no matter what hit reliability might take .. especially since they include Ghost 2003 in the retail box (which I *know* is reliable, cuz I used it to restore dozens of images).

A less-reliable back-up image is still FAR batter than no image at all.

So it seems Ghost 10 = Ghost 9 + encryption

with the exception of ghost 2003, which was released in the fall of 2002, i think symantec has released a new version every year.

PowerQuest Drive Image 7 added the incremental images feature of PowerQuest v2i Protector and became Norton Ghost 9. Similarly Ghost 10 has features already being used in Symantec LiveState Recovery, Ghost 9’s corporate big brother. I’ve looked through the Symantec LiveState Recovery userguide and found the following.

Event driven recovery points: These are simply an incremental image made to the current backup set triggered by any of the following four events. They are not like Windows System Restore. The user can select which events are desirable. Or choose none.

• Logon
• Logoff
• Application is installed
• Changes to the HD exceed x MB. X is user defined

Advanced Encryption Standard: “This is especially useful if you are storing backup image files on a network and need a high level of security protection against unauthorized access and use.”  There are 128, 192 and 256 bit encryption strengths.
I’ve never used encryption so I don’t understand how this would benefit the home user. Pleonasm, enlighten me.

Performance throttling: “Setting the operation speed may improve the performance of other resource intensive applications that you run at the same time.” This is user selectable.

Reconcile recovery points: This probably refers to “You can reduce the amount of storage space for the backup by consolidating multiple incremental backup images to a single incremental backup image. (The baseline image is still required for a restore.)” Again, it is user selectable.

This unique technology automatically detects when new storage devices are added to the computer and determines which drives should be backed up and which are optimal storage destination locations:       I couldn’t find any information on this feature.

So the terminology has changed. Restore points in time. We know that they are just plain old images. Users of Ghost 9 will only have a few new features to learn and these will be optional.

I never said Ghost 10 is not reliable. I merely take the position that DOS-based imaging (Ghost 2003) is (necessarily) more reliable that Windows-based imaging (Ghost (9 & 10) .. for reasons we have already discussed .. (less things to go wrong in DOS, compared to Windows).

Again, I applaud Symantec's goal of bringing the power of back-up imaging to the masses. For most people, Ghost 10 will be the way to go. Any imaging solution is better (far better) than no imaging solution.

I wrote to Symantec asking them to send me a dozen copies of Ghost 10, so I could distribute them to the gurus here, so we could put it thru its paces (and maybe charge our minds), but they wanted me to sign up on some beta-tester thingie.

So I might be persuaded. But for my own back-up images, Ghost 2003 is the only thing that makes me feel warm-n-fuzzy, cuz I have much experience with it, having restored *dozens* of images (without a single glitch).

Ghost 9 & 10 is based on Powerquest's Drive Image. While I concede their superior ease-of-use (Windows-based), I am nevertheless apprehensive about relying on those versions for something as important as backing up my system drive(s).

Pleo,

I never said you said I said ..  

You, my friend, are *far* from offensive .. especially given my recent legal & domestic tribulations. I wish everyone were as 'offensive' as you. I enjoy the exchange. Iron sharpens iron.

Re: "evidence" ..

.. admittedly I have no experience with Ghost 9 or 10. What I am talking about, and I believe we have already been 'round this coconut tree before, is that

* one product work from DOS (Ghost 2003)
* the other works from Windows (Ghost 9/10, formerly known as Drive Image)

In Windows, you have *many* different processes running. (hit ctrl-alt-del & see). Right now, I have more than 50 processes running.

In DOS, you have relatively few. Only really Ghost itself and .. (who can name the rest?)

Here is my RAD LOGIC >>> the more processes you have running concurrently while an image is being created or restored, the greater chance you have of any one of those processes interfering with (conflicting with) the imaging process (whether creating or restoring) ..

.. which is what makes imaging from DOS so attractive.

To me, this is akin to a mathematical thing, such as "the larger the denominator, the smaller the number" (regarding fractions). Maybe my example suks, but you should get the gist.

What I am saying is that it is necessarily so.

Rad

Rad, I think that I now finally understand  your argument that Ghost 2003 is more reliable than Ghost 9.0/10.0.  Unfortunately, I still don’t agree with it.  Allow me to present three viewpoints on your argument that might illuminate the situation.


Continuing your analogy, it is quite true that the value of a fraction increases when the numerator is held constant and the denominator decreases.  It is necessarily so, as you say.  Correspondingly, as DOS is simpler then Windows, then it is necessarily so that a DOS-based application for image backup is more reliable than one which is Windows-based, says your logic.

Here’s the difficulty.  The example with the fraction is true not only for one specific set of numerator and denominator values – it is necessarily so for all such combinations.  Correspondingly, as DOS is more simple then Windows, then – based upon this logic - it is necessarily so that all DOS-based applications are more reliable than ones which are Windows-based – whether the application is image backup, word processing, disk defragmentation, communications, etc.

You could adopt this viewpoint that all DOS-based applications are more reliable than their Windows counterparts; however, doing so seems rather peculiar.  The question then becomes:  why are you using any Windows-based applications if they are less reliable – and, if you place the highest priority upon reliability?  Why are you using Windows at all rather than DOS?


If it is necessarily the case that a DOS-based image backup application is more reliable than one which is Windows-based, then that assertion – if true – must manifest itself in the real world.  The argument – if true – leaves no doubt that observable differences in reliability will occur between DOS- and Windows-based image backup applications.   Given that such is not occurring – at least for a comparison of Ghost 2003 and Ghost 9.0/10.0 – then the merit of the argument is further weakened.


The same argument you are advancing, Rad, has been used throughout history to justify numerous bizarre conclusions.  I am not suggesting that you personally hold these opinions, but consider that well-respected academics have sincerely suggested that because the male brain in certain areas is more highly developed than that of the female brain, then it is necessarily the case that males will excel in certain subject areas.  (Similar – and equally repugnant - arguments have been made in the areas of race and ethnicity.)   While it is, of course, true that some males excel some females in some subject areas, the differences in brain complexity do not permit one to say that such performance discrepancies will necessarily be true for all males and for all females.  Correspondingly, while one can say that it is possible that a specific DOS-based image backup application is more reliable than a specific Windows-based image backup application (assuming the existence of supporting facts), it is not necessarily true for all such comparisons – even given the fact that there are differences in operating system complexity.



Thus, from my perspective, the argument that Ghost 2003 is necessarily more reliable than Ghost 9.0/10.0 because of operating system differences does not succeed.

Mr. Pleo.

I must say, I enjoy debating with you, cuz you're obviously intelligent and articulate your ideas clearly.

I have more to respond, but will begin here: You ask,

"

My answer:

Windows programs (GUI-based) are more than DOS-based applications. This is why Windows & Mac have become so popular and not many folks use DOS any more.

For all other programs ('cept Ghost & FDISK), I prefer the ease-of-use that the Windows GUI offers.

But when it comes to Ghost, where *reliability* is most important to me, I prefer Ghost 2003, which is DOS-based (which I feel is more reliable, for reasons already stated).

Plus, I already know how to use DOS-based Ghost, cuz I learned how to use it back when that's all there was. So I have no learning curve to overcome, which I would if I was a new user, deciding on using Ghost today.

Here is the crux of my argument: every additional process you have running concurrently while the image is created or restored adds another potential point of conflict. DOS eliminates Windows-based processes, which makes it (necessarily) more reliable.

Notice that I did not say more user-friendly, cuz it's not more user-friendly. Most people are willing to sacrifice reliability for ease-of-use. For most programs, I agree, but not for my back-up images. Altho I can certainly understand their position.

But the ability to reliably restore an image carries such grave consequences for people, I feel they should be aware of the difference. If they are aware and still choose Ghost 9/10 (Windows-based imaging), I say, "Great!" have at it. But just know that that ease-of-use comes with a cost: lowered reliability.

How much lower? I don't know.