Welcome, Guest. Please Login
 
  HomeHelpSearchLogin FAQ Radified Ghost.Classic Ghost.New Bootable CD Blog  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion (Read 62302 times)
Dental_Dude
Ex Member




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #15 - Sep 11th, 2005 at 7:50pm
 
Hello,

I've used Ghost 9.0 for about a month now. Everything was fine until today. I cloned the HDD from my laptop to a new HDD. Everything seemed fine; however when I installed the new HDD, the Windows screen would freeze on the blue welcome screen.  I've tried several times, but same thing.  Any suggestions? 

Checking the files in explorer indicates everthing transfered.

KF

 
 
IP Logged
 

Brian
Demigod
******
Offline



Posts: 6304
NSW, Australia


Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #16 - Sep 11th, 2005 at 7:56pm
 
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pleonasm
Guest




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #17 - Sep 21st, 2005 at 1:47pm
 
Point #13:  It Is Necessarily So

The “It Is Necessarily So” argument is closely related to the “Hot Imaging” topic (Point #3), but I am separating it for ease of discussion.   The gist of the current argument is as follows:
  • If “…every additional process you have running concurrently while a backup image is created or restored adds another potential point of conflict,” and
  • If “DOS eliminates all Windows-based processes,”
  • Then “DOS-based Ghost 2003 is necessarily more reliable than Windows-based Ghost 9.0/10.0”.

The difficulty with this argument is the huge logical jump from “potential point of conflict” to “necessarily more reliable.”  While the first two bullet points are sound, the conclusion does not follow the premise.  Consider that 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 (based upon a comparison of Ghost 2003 and Ghost 9.0/10.0), then the merit of the argument is weakened.

The argument should state:
  • If “…every additional process you have running concurrently while a backup image is created or restored adds another potential point of conflict,” and
  • If “DOS eliminates all Windows-based processes,”
  • Then “DOS-based Ghost 2003 is potentially more reliable than Windows-based Ghost 9.0/10.0”.

Thus, the discussion returns to the issue of whether the potential better reliability of Ghost 2003 over Ghost 9.0/10.0 is in fact realized.  There is, however, no evidence that compels one to conclude that the potential is reality.  For example, "hot defragmentation" (i.e., defragmenting a Windows drive from within Windows) is potentially less reliable than doing so from DOS, but there is simply no evidence that such Windows tools as Diskeeper or Perfect Disk have reduced reliability over DOS counterparts.

The interested reader will find the full discussion of this argument in the thread “Symantec Norton Ghost 10” at http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=11241....
 
 
IP Logged
 
Franks
Guest




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #18 - Oct 13th, 2005 at 10:21pm
 
Guys - thank you for providing such thorough and professionally presented information, I am so happy to have found such a good resource for imaging issues. I love that this site does not attract the kind of ill-informed numptys that stop me from getting to page 2 in a forum. I guess that when opinions are backed up with actual knowledge and experience, it confuses people who are not actually looking for resources and solution-oriented discussion. Great work and thanks again. I've picked up more off this site and a special thanks to NightOwl for the bootable cd/dvd pages - the best I could find on the net! I am using bits and bobs in our corporate desktop solution now as redundancy from our standard ghost methodology.
 
 
IP Logged
 
Rad
Radministrator
*****
Offline


Sufferin' succotash

Posts: 4090
Newport Beach, California


Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #19 - Oct 15th, 2005 at 1:47pm
 
Well there's a gracious compliment. Thanks for the kind words.
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Michel_Merlin
Ex Member




Back to top
Hot Imaging vs Windows Imaging
Reply #20 - Nov 17th, 2005 at 12:09pm
 
I am new to radified (that I just discovered today) and never used Ghost myself (someone else made the images for me). But I have been a DI (PowerQuest Drive Image) user - even if occasionally and in the early versions (DI2 and DI4).

I remember of DI as a reliable and serious product - I had chosen it over Norton mainly for this reason. It did all the imaging under DOS, which kept the reliability of still imaging (in DOS) while adding the comfort and efficiency of interactive planning (in Windows) since all the process was progressively (version after version) automated like this (in PowerQuest Partition Magic first, then in DI):
  • Under Windows, DI (or PM) lets you virtually make all changes you want to the HD (partitionning or imaging), interactively, immediately and graphically pre-showing you all the (future) consequences;
  • DI (or PM) closes Windows;
  • Under DOS, DI (or PM) executes the changes;
  • DI (or PM) restarts Windows.
Then, after stage #1 (designing the changes), you can leave your PC; when you come back, it is running Windows, after all your changes have been applied unattended.

Then, until DI6, PowerQuest didn't AFAIK any really "Hot" Imaging, the imaging was designed in Windows, but remained executed in DOS.

Apparently (see PC WORLD Drive Image Does Windows, Sep 2003) PowerQuest in DI7 introduced true Hot Imaging, IMO against their own faith and only because feeling hard-stressed by competition (mainly from Acronis).

The bad reputation DI7 now has, results IMO from several factors, in which real quality issues may be minor:
  • Since out of business, PowerQuest no longer promotes or markets its reputation; this is a major reason IMO;
  • Since PQ didn't really believe Hot Imaging was a safe solution, while building the product they didn't put all the faith and hard drive such a task needs;
  • The new owner is interested in leveraging its own reputation and its own product name's one, hence in lowering the one of the product name they are terminating (after buying it, possibly in such purpose)
So a big question (important for the ones who, as me, haven't used Ghost 9 themselves), so far apparently little reported here, is IMO: Is Ghost 9 doing really Hot Imaging (i.e. real time immediate execution of all changes), or Interactively Designed Still Imaging (i.e. changes defined in Windows, then executed in DOS)?

Personnally I still think that the best solution for Imaging is the one PQ had progressively improved with DI until DI6, i.e. Still Imaging executed in DOS after being first interactively designed in Windows. As Rad nicely puts it (Norton Ghost v9.0 & Hot Imaging, middle of page):

« DOS is our tripod to keep Windows stationary so we can take a sharp picture of our sexy operating system with our Ghost camera. »

Paris, Thu 17 Nov 2005  17:09:20 +0100, edited 17:24:40
 
 
IP Logged
 

Rad
Radministrator
*****
Offline


Sufferin' succotash

Posts: 4090
Newport Beach, California


Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #21 - Nov 17th, 2005 at 1:21pm
 
Nice post. Love the links. Nothing like taking advantage of hypertext.

With regards tp PM, I think you will find that, the more operations you queue up in Windows, the greater your chance of experiencing a quirky problem in DOS. Which is why I always recommend folks take baby-steps and perform one operation at a time .. reboot, and do the next.

Yeah, I fancied my
tripod
analogy rather clever.   8)

Is Ghost 9/10 relaible? That's the $64K question.

Seems Ghost 9/10 is all about user-friendliness. There's a big market out there consisting of folks who would love the back-up relaibility of an imaging program, but who do not have or care to acquire the knowledge necessary to work thru the (unfriendly) DOS interface. Can't really blame the manufacturers.

I am thinking of playing wit Ghost 10, just to acquaint myself with it. But I will still maintain a complement of back-up images with Ghost 2003.

PARIS
? Was your car burned? What the heck is the problem there? Saw it on TV.
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Michel_Merlin
Ex Member




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #22 - Nov 17th, 2005 at 2:38pm
 
Rad wrote on Nov 17th, 2005 at 1:21pm:
With regards tp PM, I think you will find that, the more operations you queue up in Windows, the greater your chance of experiencing a quirky problem in DOS.
I used PM3, 5 and 6. This program continually improved, from insufficient and buggy (PM3.0.0) to fixed (PM3.0.5 IIRC, PM5) to quite satisfying (PM6.0).

In PM6.0 (that I still use) I can schedule ~10 operations, that later get executed in DOS, without any problem. I am careful however while in the Windows preparation, to schedule operations only in the logical order and without corrections; if I make a mistake (for instance correcting a resizing), I exit PM, discarding the changes, and redo from scratch.

Rad wrote on Nov 17th, 2005 at 1:21pm:
I am thinking of playing wit Ghost 10, just to acquaint myself with it. But I will still maintain a complement of back-up images with Ghost 2003.
I too would like to use Ghost 2003, e.g. to change the HD on my Laptop. I don't trust Ghost 9 or 10, I think they lost DI7 qualities (DI7's only flaw AFAIK was when dealing with optical medias; as long as you saved to/restored from HDs, it got no complaints.)

Rad wrote on Nov 17th, 2005 at 1:21pm:
PARIS
? Was your car burned? What the heck is the problem there? Saw it on TV.
Paris area is 11M inhabitants, thus ~5M cars. There were 10,000 burned - i.e. 0.2%, so I saw none - excepted on TV. The ones who burn, of course they have cars; but personally I have no more: they did everything to make impossible to people like me to use or even to own a car, and now at 65, since spring 2004 and after fiercely resisting, I can only go by bicycle, train and bus - that are exhaustingly slow and unreliable. This is a political problem and it's hard (and may be dangersous) to speak more of it.

Paris, Thu 17 Nov 2005  19:38:40 +0100
 
 
IP Logged
 
Rad
Radministrator
*****
Offline


Sufferin' succotash

Posts: 4090
Newport Beach, California


Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #23 - Nov 17th, 2005 at 2:48pm
 
Nice to hear from someone who actually lives there. Friends have told me I would like Europe, as they claim I am "European" .. whatever that means .. tho sadly, I have never been.

Your statement: "
This is a political problem and it's hard (and may be dangersous) to speak more of it
" made my head spin, as I understand the implications. Thanks for sharing.

I try to simply life when- and wherever possible. I have always admired Gandhi, who, at the time of his death, possessed little more than a robe, sandals, bowl, book, and a pair of glasses.

Not easy to simply, especially in our pro-consumer world, where everywhere you go, the marketers tell us we're nothing without their products.

So I am a little jealous of your no-car lifestyle.
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
El_Pescador
Übermensch
*****
Offline


Thumbs Up!

Posts: 1605
Bayou Country, USA


Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #24 - Nov 17th, 2005 at 6:35pm
 
Rad wrote on Nov 17th, 2005 at 2:48pm:
"... I try to simply life when- and wherever possible.  I have always admired Gandhi, who, at the time of his death, possessed little more than a robe, sandals, bowl, book, and a pair of glasses..."

Such an ascetic lifestyle is quite commendable when your goal is to voluntarily practice strict self-denial as a measure of personal - and especially spiritual - discipline.  However, doing so involuntarily in a post-Katrina environment is a total bummer Roll Eyes


EP
Cry
 

...
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pleonasm
Guest




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #25 - Nov 18th, 2005 at 2:02pm
 
“Is Ghost 9/10 reliable? That's the $64K question.”  Actually, to be precise, the $64,000 question is “Is Ghost 9/10 any less reliable than Ghost 2003?”

No major application is 100.00% reliable (given the huge number of variations in PC hardware and configuration options), to be sure.  However, no one on this forum, from my humble perspective, has provided any empirical evidence or logical rationale that Ghost 9/10 is (or should be) less reliable than Ghost 2003.  The arguments that have been advanced in this regard are clearly documented in this thread, together with corresponding counter-points.

I encourage Michel_Merlin (and all other readers of this post) to specifically reference one of the thirteen points in this thread and support or refute that argument.  Unsubstantiated comments like “PQ didn't really believe Hot Imaging was a safe solution” add no value to this dialog.
 
 
IP Logged
 

Kool
Dude
*
Offline



Posts: 18


Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #26 - Nov 21st, 2005 at 4:28pm
 
Hi y'all!

Good thread.

Bought (after a long trial of an unofficial copy of Ghost 2003) Ghost V9 and use Ghost 2003. From floppy. No installation.

So you might think I'm going to stick with the version I know works.

OK you're right I will, but in the interest of keeping an open mind I offer the following for comment.

Pleonasm, you have placed your arguments for all to see, very clearly and concisely. I do not wish to take arms against you, in fact the opposite. But it will appear that I oppose you. But I do not, OK so that's the jest at your name, mines rubbish!

The only point I can take issue with is Point 11. Stats? If I am to take this seriously then lets compare like with like. What is the point in percentages with no comparison in number of end users of each product? If Ghost 2003 has many times the number of users compared to V9 / V10 then of course, more people will have Ghost 2003 queries, and because, like I used to use a "trial" copy, perhaps there are more users than copies sold! I did a Google Group Search, as suggested, for Ghost 9.0 and got 24,600 results, for Ghost 2003 it was 202,000. Ummm... perhaps Pleonasm has a point? Can there really be 8.2113821138211382113821138211382x the number of Ghost 2003 users? Hey, it's a Windows calculator thing! The point is moot, lets move on.

What does Symantec do? They SELL things.

That being the case they, like all companies, will want to increase sales.

Amongst marketing "hype-words" one of the most powerful is, "NEW".

So a new version will generate new sales and upgrades. If you already have a perfectly good product that does what it says on the tin (taken from a UK advert, no apologies), why would anyone want to purchase a new product?

It absolutely has to have a USP, a Unique Selling Point.

Thus, we have Ghost V9/V10 "Hot Imaging", and  consequential ease of use.

What, as Ghost consumers, do we need? (not want, I'll come to that!).

We need to be able to RESCUE, reliably, ourselves from broken Windows.

Will Ghost 2003 do this? Yes.

Will Ghost V9/V10 do this? I suspect the answer is "Yes". Would I be willing to RELY upon this? Right now, NO. Suspicion is no reason to convict, or in this case, use.

I need proof. There's only me that can provide that proof for myself. Just like there's only you that can provide the proof for yourself. It's a bit like "do we live after death", there no substite for direct experience! Don't come and see me with a gun, I'm willing to wait for my 3 score and 10!

I might be persuaded to install V9 and run a live comparison, keeping both 2003 & V9 images, that way I'm covered. It'll be a good test to see if SATA disks can be imaged more easily than in Ghost 2003, my machine has an internal SATA disk and needs one of the 135 switches (-NOIDE) to persuade Ghost 2003 to work!

What, as Ghost consumers, do we want?

A simple, reliable and easy to use way to RESCUE ourselves from broken Windows. If Ghost V9/V10 encourages more people to protect themselves, then that's great. Will V9 / V10 be able to RESCUE them from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? I hope so.

What should we use? ANYTHING that actually WORKS, that we feel confortable using. It doesn't matter how good, or poor a product is, people still use feelings!

If V9 / V10 are stable, in use in many corporate and home environments, used regularly and reliably to restore from, and have as low a failure rate as Ghost 2003, then lets applaud Symantec for good products, and ourselves for using them.

And, finally, my thanks to Pleonasm for placing some considered facts in front of us, perhaps we can take heart that we 2003ers, in all probability, have somewhere to go when we need to upgrade!  Smiley
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pleonasm
Guest




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #27 - Nov 21st, 2005 at 6:37pm
 
Kool, your comments about “Point 11” are well-taken, but these were already recognized in this thread at Reply #7.  Nonetheless, the ratio of 24,600 to 202,000 still suggests (but does not prove) that Ghost 9/10 may be less troublesome than Ghost 2003, as judged by the number of ‘questions’ arising for each.  At minimum, it would appear to place to burden of proof upon those who argue in favor of the reliability of Ghost 2003, given the magnitude of the difference.

I certainly agree that promoting “hot imaging” by Symantec is a sales strategy.  But the fact that Symantec wants us to buy “product X” isn’t really germane to the question of whether that product is reliable – which is the gist of this thread.  If you own a license for Ghost 2003 and are satisfied with the product, there is no compelling reason to ‘upgrade’ to Ghost 9/10 (at least until Windows Vista appears, which then may change the landscape).  Correspondingly, from my perspective, if you own a license for Ghost 9/10 and are satisfied with the product, there is no compelling reason to ‘down-grade’ to Ghost 2003.  Both products perform essentially the same function, and I am unaware of any reason to suspect that one is more or less reliable than the other.

Concerning “proof,” I do agree that there is no substitute for personal experience.  However, unless a user is willing to use both Ghost 2003 and Ghost 9/10, a decision for one or the other typically needs to be made.  For this reason, the core argument becomes based upon logical considerations combined with the experience of others – e.g., primarily corporate users.

Keep the commentary comin’!

Best wishes,
Pleonasm
 
 
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #28 - Nov 21st, 2005 at 7:07pm
 
Quote:
However, unless a user is willing to use both Ghost 2003 and Ghost 9/10, a decision for one or the other typically needs to be made.

I'm almost sure that I wouldn't be the first user to run Ghost 2003 and Ghost 9/10 in parallel during a "transition period". I am playing with the thought and I have a spare hard disk (would that one still be called a target disk) to play with. That white fluffy stuff has started emerging from higher altitudes, announcing the imminent arrival of Santa so if I get a yellow cardboard box for Christmas ...... Undecided ...... who knows.

I said "almost sure" and the reason is the issue with GoBack and Ghost 2003 not getting along on the same system. So, what's the situation with Ghost 9/10 and Ghost 2003? I assume that Ghost 9/10 could be paused if someone was running Ghost 2003 from the Windows Interface but that wouldn't be an issue for me, running the tasks from Ghost Boot Disks, right?

Christer
 

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


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

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


Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #29 - Nov 21st, 2005 at 8:15pm
 
Christer

El Pescador mentioned some time ago that Ghost 9.x would not install on the same system if Ghost 2003 was *installed*--i.e. the *Windows Interface*--the install program insisted that you un-install Ghost 2003 first.

But, there is no reason I can imagine that you would be prevented from doing various Ghost 2003 procedures from DOS--Ghost 9.x would be fast *asleep* and unaware of any Ghost 2003 in DOS!
 

No question is stupid...but, possibly the answers are Wink !&&
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print