"Hot-imaging" versus "Cold-imaging"

"PowerQuest" versus "Binary Research"

There's also a higher chance of generating a conflict. For purposes of this discussion, I'll include a link to my thoughts on the subject, which we've debated:

http://ghost.radified.com/norton_ghost_90.htm

I'm almost hesitant to weigh in here, because this topic keeps coming up.  But since this thread is in the Ghost 9/10/S&R board, let me give a few of my comments.

Rad wrote on Mar 26^th, 2007 at 9:44am:

I would say that use of DOS and Ghost 2003 creates a higher chance of generating a conflict.

4 years (from 2003 to 2007) is several generations and many light years in terms of PCs and operating systems.  There was DOS, Windows 3, 3.1, 95, 95SE, 98, Me, NT, 2000 Pro, XP, and now Vista.  The real issue is keeping an old operating system and old software working on newer designed hardware and software.  Since 2003, we've had usb, usb2, SATA, PCI express, new motherboards, Core 2 Duo, 64bit, and now Vista which has a completely different boot process than XP.

I'm not saying that you *can't* make Ghost 2003 work today and tomorrow, but the challenge is greater (and the risk of failure greater) each year.  For example,  over the last 2 or 3 years, there have been innumerable threads, questions, posts, about how to get an external chipset and external usb2 hard drive to work with DOS, because you have to have you own drivers for DOS.  I can't even enumerate all the combinations that do or don't work or may or may not work.  

If you are a tinkerer (as many on this forum apparently are) then DOS (and cold imaging) is fine.  I liked DOS 10-15 years ago, and considered myself an expert at tinkering with it.  In 1957 I also liked the '57 Chevy but today I would say there is a higher degree of chance of conflict with a '57 Chevy than a new car.  They are still on the road, and tinkerers love them.

Regarding hot imaging, however, I believe that is a separate subject.  Many large corporations have online databases that are literally online 24/7/365.  Yet they somehow make hot backups keeping our financial and other records safe.  Of course, a purist (tinkerer) could say, "shut them down each day for an hour (maybe even a day for big corps), and take a cold backup" but that's not realistic, and not practical.

Hot imaging and hot backup is built into the design.  That is why vendors are not marketing cold imaging (shut your pc down and boot from this other cd or diskette) products.  They are taking advantage of the current operating system and hardware designs to take a reliable-image-backup.  Whether it uses Snapshot Technology or Volume Shadow Services or some other proprietary method, I personally believe it is less risky that attempting to get DOS programs to work in 2007 on 2007-type hardware and software.

We're already at another DOS/Ghost 2003 hurdle with Vista boot.  I'm sure the tinkerers here will find a way to accommodate that.  Make DOS work with Vista.  How about 64 bit processors?  There will probably be a way to accommodate that as well.  How about new storage devices, flashdrives, ReadyBoost and others that are coming?  There will probably be a way to write or create DOS device drives for that too.

I'm not belittling a tinkerer because I consider myself one.  But I am realistic as to the future.  I try and find current solutions to resolve problems for current PC users on today's hardware and today's software.

Getting stuck 4 years ago or 10 years ago can be nostalgic, but we need to get "back to the future".

(just my 2 cents worth)

Pleonasm, I had a feeling that for once we would just have to agree to agree!   

John. wrote on Mar 26^th, 2007 at 1:26pm:

Actually, to truthfully confess the very reason that I placed nearly-identical posts with such headings and marquees "on-both-sides-of-the-aisle" was not to incite argument but instead to "unravel" the confusing nomenclature promulgated by Symantec through the use of the phrase 'Ghost' or 'Norton Ghost'.  When folks rattled off Version 11 or Version 12, my poor head began to spin because I literally did not know which genera of Ghost was being referred to.

In fact, I am of the opinion that these posts may someday merit a sticky!

 

John. wrote on Mar 26^th, 2007 at 1:26pm:


The facts you stated address the issue of evolution of the situation.

For almost all end users who are not in 7/24 uptime mode, cold imaging should be adequate. However some of us would like to keep uptodate as to what is going on in the technical world where hardware and software innovations take place all the time. May be one day in the near future every one will be using  hot imaging. We will have to wait and see.

For those who are comfortable only with cold imaging for now, Symantec Ghost 11 (enterprise) provides a reasonable answer since it addresses all the issues relating to the internal handling of data by Vista.  Only current hurdle for end users like us is the licensing and I have posted a long msg in Symantec Ghost SS forum suggesting Symantec consider selling single licenses so it is cost effective for individual customers. My hope is Symantec will come up with a way for us to acquire single licenses so that we can own a legit copy of the Ghost 11 (enterprise).

/me 

nbree

Very nice input--I appreciate your perspective--thank you!

I noticed in nbree's (Nigel) profile that he's a Ghost developer ("Principal Software Engineer"). Certainly that gives him huge credibility when it comes to discussing the intricacies of the prgm.

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=nbree

http://nigel.bree.googlepages.com/

Welcome.

I can't help but wonder how long he's been developing Ghost. Back when I first started using Ghost (v5.1), it was hard (impossible) to find any help for it. I had to learn the hard way.