Welcome, Guest. Please Login
 
  HomeHelpSearchLogin FAQ Radified Ghost.Classic Ghost.New Bootable CD Blog  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 6
Send Topic Print
Symantec Norton Ghost 10 (Read 121632 times)
Rad
Radministrator
*****
Offline


Sufferin' succotash

Posts: 4090
Newport Beach, California


Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #15 - Sep 14th, 2005 at 2:33pm
 
Thanks, Pleo.

Some thots:

1
. they say: "
captures contents of entire drive
" - and - "
complete recovery in one easy step
"

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

2
. they say "
best practice storage detection .. unique technology detects which drives .. should be backed up
(system drive, of course)
and which are optimal storage destination locations
"

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.

3
. I notice they use the word "
easy
" 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.

4
. They say: "
New recovery point capability focus on points in time rather than images
."

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.

5
. Re:  
encryption
.

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.

6
. Re: "
reduce the amount of storage space
"

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
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 

Pleonasm
Guest




Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #16 - Sep 14th, 2005 at 2:58pm
 
It is too early to determine what Symantec is really delivering through these new features, given the absence of any actual experience with Ghost 10.0 by anyone and also given the absence of the availability of an updated User's Guide as of yet.  It's fun to speculate, though.

My sense is that Symantec is targeting the mass of home PC users that are generally clueless about backup strategies and tactics.  For that, I applaud the efforts of Symantec to deliver the benefits of image backup to a larger audience.  For more sophisticated individuals, of course, many of these ease-of-use features are less compelling and will likely not be utilized.

It is a function of personal preference, but I place a high degree of weight upon the security of the information stored on my PC.  As a consequence, I welcome the addition of an encryption feature.  For those users who don't value the privacy of their PC files, then I would assume that they can omit the use of the feature.

I agree that as the number of features for a software product increases, then so too does the risk of a problem arising.  To some extent this can be mitigated by simply not employing those features, if the user so chooses.
 
 
IP Logged
 
Rad
Radministrator
*****
Offline


Sufferin' succotash

Posts: 4090
Newport Beach, California


Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #17 - Sep 14th, 2005 at 3:02pm
 
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
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
tumbler
Gnarly
*
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 42


Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #18 - Sep 14th, 2005 at 3:23pm
 
so what it symantec doing ? releasing a new version of ghost yearly now ?  geesh.. my pocketbook can't keep up soon
 
 
IP Logged
 
DaddyO
Radmeister
**
Offline


Oh, brother.

Posts: 79


Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #19 - Sep 14th, 2005 at 4:08pm
 
with the exception of ghost 2003, which was released in the fall of 2002, i think symantec has released a new version every year.
 
 
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #20 - Sep 14th, 2005 at 5:43pm
 
I don't like that "Ghost 10 resembles System Restore". SR failed me twice (on Windows ME), didn't do what I was led to believe it would. I haven't touched SR since the second failure (two attempts - that's a 100% failure rate) but was triggered to use Ghost 2003 and to set up my system to make it practical.

(I was actually triggered after the first failure and my Ghost 2003 image saved my butt the second time.)

I don't trust "System Destroy" and have the service disabled. The purchase of Ghost 2003 is a prerequisite for my assistance in building a computer and setting up the system for someone.

Christer
 

Old chinese proverb:
If I hear - I forget, If I see - I remember, If I do - I understand
 
IP Logged
 

Brian
Demigod
******
Offline



Posts: 6304
NSW, Australia


Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #21 - Sep 14th, 2005 at 8:10pm
 
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.

 
 
IP Logged
 
Pleonasm
Guest




Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #22 - Sep 15th, 2005 at 5:45pm
 
Rad, concerning your post #17 in this thread, I am disappointed  Sad you have already decided that Ghost 10.0 is a "less-reliable back-up" than Ghost 2003 – even before the product has become available.

As Brian has noted in post #21, the new features of Ghost 10.0 are proven functionality within the corporate environment which are now being made available to the consumer environment.  Additionally, to me at least, it seems that most of these new features represent automatic configuration options that simplify the use of the tool rather than substantial changes to the kernel of the tool.
 
 
IP Logged
 
Rad
Radministrator
*****
Offline


Sufferin' succotash

Posts: 4090
Newport Beach, California


Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #23 - Sep 15th, 2005 at 6:35pm
 
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).
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pleonasm
Guest




Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #24 - Sep 15th, 2005 at 7:24pm
 
Rad, I never said that you said "Ghost 10 is not reliable" - only referenced your quote in post #17 that Ghost 10.0 is a "less-reliable back-up" solution than Ghost 2003.

I fully appreciate the fact that you have a "warm-n-fuzzy" feeling about Ghost 2003 based on your experience.  It is indeed a reliable image backup product, with a long history of performing well.

I continue to be in awe, however, that Ghost 9.0/10.0 is labeled as "less-reliable" given the absence of evidence to support that assertion.

Feelings (with or without supporting facts) - that I understand; unfounded conclusions with no supporting facts - that is something I will never understand.

I do not intend to offend, but it may be worthwhile to review the definition of the term prejudice (dictionary.com):
  • An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts

  • A preconceived preference or idea
If someone at some points presents a compelling set of facts documenting that Ghost 9.0/10.0 is less reliable than Ghost 2003, then I will certainly concede the point and switch products myself.  To-date, I am unaware of any evidence that would compel a neutral independent observer to reach this conclusion.  A "preconceived preference or idea" ought not to serve as the basis for an assertion, in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Pleonasm
 
 
IP Logged
 
Rad
Radministrator
*****
Offline


Sufferin' succotash

Posts: 4090
Newport Beach, California


Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #25 - Sep 15th, 2005 at 8:07pm
 
Pleo,

I never said you said I said ..  Smiley

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
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 

Brian
Demigod
******
Offline



Posts: 6304
NSW, Australia


Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #26 - Sep 15th, 2005 at 10:40pm
 
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pleonasm
Guest




Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #27 - Sep 16th, 2005 at 1:56pm
 
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.

Viewpoint #1:  DOS is More Reliable

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?

Viewpoint #2:  Truth has Consequences

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.

Viewpoint #3:  Prejudice

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.
 
 
IP Logged
 
NightOwl-
Übermensch
*****
Offline


"I tought I saw a puddy
tat...."

Posts: 2094
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound-USA


Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #28 - Sep 16th, 2005 at 2:12pm
 
Pleonasm

I have never had a DOS based program crash--except when I have tried to load or use it *under Windows*!  But, I'm sure there are DOS based programs that may cause crashes.  Especially *game* programs that try to be too much of everything, and try to use a machine not compatible for the complexity of the program.

I have had program conflicts when I try to load multiple DOS programs that want to access the same resources at the same time--but I have to be loading a *complex* DOS bootup so there are multi-threaded DOS programs running at the same time.

Windows, on the other hand...... Grin

But, I must say, WinXP has been the *best* so far in terms of stability--as long as I do not stray from Microsoft's *defaults* too far--so, maybe the fear and distrust of running a critical program in Windows is a *thing of the past*!?
 

No question is stupid...but, possibly the answers are Wink !&&
 
IP Logged
 
Rad
Radministrator
*****
Offline


Sufferin' succotash

Posts: 4090
Newport Beach, California


Back to top
Re: Symantec Norton Ghost 10
Reply #29 - Sep 16th, 2005 at 3:09pm
 
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,

"
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?"


My answer:

Windows programs (GUI-based) are more
user-friendly
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
all
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.
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 6
Send Topic Print