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 62413 times)
Rad
Radministrator
*****
Offline


Sufferin' succotash

Posts: 4090
Newport Beach, California


Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #45 - Nov 23rd, 2005 at 2:55pm
 
You're a step ahead of me.
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 

Pleonasm
Guest




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #46 - Nov 23rd, 2005 at 3:19pm
 
NightOwl, concerning Reply #30, my comment about a “‘down-grade’ to Ghost 2003” was not intended to represent “attitude.”  Wink  I did use single quotes around the phrase ‘down-grade’ specifically to indicate that the use was intended to be colloquial in nature.  It is also commonplace to associate “up” with advances in time and “down” with the reserve, so one would say that “Ghost 10.0 is an upgrade to Ghost 9.0” or, correspondingly, “Ghost 9.0 is a down-grade from Ghost 10.0” so-to-speak.  Hopefully, I did not offend.

By the way, I have nothing against Ghost 2003.  It is a proven application that is widely recognized to have a high degree of reliability.  However, perhaps it my own personality, but I do have an issue with arguments are not tightly conceived, supported, or are lacking in rigor.  The argument that somehow Ghost 9/10 is less reliable than Ghost 2003 is a member of that set, in my opinion (e.g., "DOS is our tripod...").  So, as you see, I’m not really arguing against Ghost 2003 per se so much as I am rebelling against the quality of the argument put forward by Ghost 2003 advocates who – for some unknown psychological reason – feel ‘threatened’ (?) by the equality of the performance of Ghost 9/10.

Best wishes,
Pleonasm
 
 
IP Logged
 
xtmw
Guest




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #47 - Dec 8th, 2005 at 6:18pm
 
I have used ghost for over 8 years. I need both ghost 2003 and ghost 10. They are two different products used in entirely different ways.

Ghost 2003 - When I am working on various machines doing HDD upgrades, security backup (just to be sure I don't lose any customer data), building multiple similar systems for customers, etc.

Ghost 9/10 - Easy to use continuous backups when minimal effort is required. No matter how important I tell my clients backing up their data is, they will have a hard time doing it consitantly! Even if it's as simple as clicking an icon! With Ghost 9/10, once it's installed and a schedule is set to image to a secure location, there is no required user ACTION, which is critical because the hardest thing about backing up is doing it religiously.

As far as reliabilty, I have had no problems with either product.
I first used ghost to configure 500 systems (rentals) for H&R block . Used an image stored on a server and floppy boot disks with auto switches set to get the image. It still took a while, but ever since then I have realized the incredible power disk imaging provides...

Use both - Be happy!
Don't forget that Ghost 2003 comes with Ghost 9/10!
 
 
IP Logged
 
Rad
Radministrator
*****
Offline


Sufferin' succotash

Posts: 4090
Newport Beach, California


Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #48 - Dec 8th, 2005 at 9:39pm
 
Thx for contributing.
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Robin Eddy
Guest




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #49 - Jan 30th, 2006 at 11:33pm
 
I am about to use GHOST 9 to make a new  cloan of "C:" drive on a "Western Digital Caviar Special Edition 320GB ATA-100 8MB Cache ",
which is winging its way by mail to me as we speak.

Questions ?,
Do I need to use Ghost9 or will there be cloan tool software with the new drive that is adequate?
If I use Ghost9 will I have to alter DEP & Boot.ini as advised on forum as I have XP Pro & SP2 already installed or should I try to load Ghost9 first as I am not keen on messing with the system if I don't have to. Also is it undoable & would it give me problems if the cloan does not work?
Is there anything else I should know before battle commences?
Any advice would be appreciated, thank you from Merry England.

System as follows:-

Drive
C:
Description
Local Fixed Disk no partitions
Compressed
No
File System
NTFS
Size
8.03 GB (8,620,060,672 bytes)
Free Space
1,014.18 MB (1,063,448,576 bytes)

Drive
D:
Description
Local Fixed Disk no partitions
Compressed
No
File System
NTFS
Size
167.68 GB (180,043,120,640 bytes)
Free Space
32.36 GB (34,746,933,248 bytes)

[color=Blue][/color]
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian
Demigod
******
Offline



Posts: 6304
NSW, Australia


Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #50 - Jan 31st, 2006 at 12:13am
 
Robin,

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=11175...


Quote:
will I have to alter DEP & Boot.ini

Forget you ever heard this about DEP etc.


http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ghost.nsf/docid/1998121814425425

I'm not familiar with compressed drives.



Your C drive is too full at 12% free. Try to keep NTFS partitions more than 15% free space. You really need to move data from this drive or you will have trouble with the Copy Drive and with defragmentation.
 
 
IP Logged
 

Robin Eddy
Guest




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #51 - Jan 31st, 2006 at 8:40am
 
Thanks for prompt reply, new drive has arrived so will start clone soon but there was no software with it anyway (OEM).
Sorry my text layout was not as clear as it should have been, my drives are not compressed. So it should be straightforward I hope.
I have tried to empty my c: drive but a lot of it is in the windows folder,  (532mb in service pack files) for instance and (178mb of $hf_mig$) which I think might be uninstall files put on by service Pac 2, if so can I delete them or at least move them to my “D” drive without incurring problems with system?.
I was concerned about  “DEP & Boot.ini as advised on http://service1.symantec.com/support/powerquest.nsf/pfdocs/2004101410380862,
As I have XP Pro & SP2 already installed”, but if you say ignore it that’s what I will do.  Ta for help…………….Robin..
 
 
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 #52 - Jan 31st, 2006 at 10:37am
 
Robin Eddy

Quote:
new drive has arrived so will start clone soon but there was no software with it anyway (OEM).

Probably can get whatever software is shipped with retail versions from the manufacturer's website--if that's what you want.
 

No question is stupid...but, possibly the answers are Wink !&&
 
IP Logged
 
Robin Eddy
Guest




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #53 - Jan 31st, 2006 at 11:49am
 
Thanks for that.
Any comment on the rest of my message?........Robin..
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pleonasm
Guest




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #54 - Jan 31st, 2006 at 11:58am
 
Robin, concerning the Data Execution Prevention (DEP) policy, this is a security mechanism that was introduced with Windows XP SP2.  It is intended to prevent the running of code which is embedded in memory data blocks, typically a characteristic of viruses or spyware.

Ignoring Ghost for the moment, it is advisable to set DEP to “OptOut” as a preventative security measure.  Search www.Microsoft.com for “Data Execution Prevention” to learn more about this subject.
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian
Demigod
******
Offline



Posts: 6304
NSW, Australia


Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #55 - Jan 31st, 2006 at 7:56pm
 
Pleo,

In or Out? I don't understand it. I just follow orders. In is the Microsoft default.
 
 
IP Logged
 

Pleonasm
Guest




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #56 - Feb 1st, 2006 at 11:31am
 
Brian, “By default, DEP is only turned on for essential Windows operating system programs and services.”  Using the “OptOut” specification extends coverage to “all processes,” which is obviously more comprehensive.  Enabling DEP for all processes is one additional protection against the running of malicious code on your PC.

See the Microsoft article, “A detailed description of the Data Execution Prevention (DEP) feature in Windows XP Service Pack 2” at:
   http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=875352&product=windowsxpsp2
 
 
IP Logged
 
John.
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 2072


Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #57 - Feb 1st, 2006 at 12:06pm
 
Pleo, thanks for the info.

Doesn't DEP require a motherboard that supports it?  I think that's why it is rarely a probablem with Ghost 9 because I thought DEP requires both the switch setting as well as a motherboard and bios that will enforce it.
 

Ghost4me  Ghost 9, 10, 12, 14, 15.  Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7
 
IP Logged
 
Pleonasm
Guest




Back to top
Re: Ghost 9.0 Reliability:  A Discussion
Reply #58 - Feb 1st, 2006 at 1:39pm
 
Ghost4me, DEP is enforced through hardware, if that capability is supported on the PC; otherwise, through software.  In either case, utilizing DEP is a mechanism that may help to block security intrusions.

None of the applications that I run my PC have been negatively impacted by activating DEP.
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print