Welcome, Guest. Please Login
 
  HomeHelpSearchLogin FAQ Radified Ghost.Classic Ghost.New Bootable CD Blog  
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Are these bootdisk files correct? (Read 9357 times)
voximan
Technoluster
***
Offline


I Love Radified!

Posts: 115
England, UK


Back to top
Are these bootdisk files correct?
Oct 13th, 2008 at 10:29am
 
I recently spent a long time in this forum trying to get to the bottom of a strange disk-recognition problem in Ghost 2003 on my system, involving external USB drive access when using a bootdisk. No proposed workaround corrected this unfortunately and, in the end, I had to conclude that the problem was due to some shortcoming in my system BIOS. However, I've since been reading in these forums of others who've been having other, possibly-related problems with Ghost 2003 and ext USB drives.

The conclusions drawn by some others, when investigating their own problems, have been that 2003 Build 793, obtained via the Archive server, either doesn't properly update the existing program files and/or that the USB driver that Build 793 provides isn't up to the job. Our friend Nigel, from Symantec, is under the impression that Build 793 replaces the old Iomega USB driver by a more versatile one but, certainly in my case, that's not borne out by what I've seen onscreen when PC-DOS is entered.

Although I'm still of the view that, in my case, failure for Ghost to correctly see BOTH drives (source and destination) and not just one, in the DOS environment, has been due to an unknown strange incompatibility of my BIOS, I do still wonder whether the bootdisk files that I've been using have been correct. Can someone let me know? Here's what I find on my bootdisk:

GHOST
USB
AUTOEXEC.BAT
COMMAND.COM
CONFIG.SYS
IBMBIO.COM
IBMDOS.COM
MOUSE.COM
MOUSE.INI

USB2.0 access to the ext USB drive is chosen. No driveletters assigned (as I understand it, driveletters aren't assigned in PC-DOS anyway).

The USB file contains aspiehci.sys.

AUTOEXEC.BAT consists of:-

@echo off
SET TZ=GHO+00:00
MOUSE.COM
echo Loading .....
CD GHOST
GHOST.EXE

CONFIG.SYS consists of:-

DEVICE = usb\aspiehci.sys /int /all
LASTDRIVE = Z

Should the files on the bootdisk include one called GUEST.EXE? Is the line 'SET TZ=GHO+00:00' correct?
 
 
IP Logged
 

TheShadow
Kahuna
*****
Offline


Old Ghost user!

Posts: 613
Florida, USA


Back to top
Re: Are these bootdisk files correct?
Reply #1 - Oct 13th, 2008 at 2:00pm
 
So many questions.......

And just one answer:

SET TZ=GHO+00:00 sets your time zone (TZ) to 00.00 which means you're setting on the time line that runs thru England.

If you were in the eastern US, for instance, it should read:
SET TZ=GHO-05:00

That whole line is superfluous to the problem you're having.

I can only suspect it's all going back to your bios, not properly reporting to Ghost what it sees connected to your computer.

'Luck

Cool
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
NightOwl
Radministrator
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 5826
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound--USA


Back to top
Re: Are these bootdisk files correct?
Reply #2 - Oct 15th, 2008 at 9:53am
 
@
 voximan

Quote:
I do still wonder whether the bootdisk files that I've been using have been correct.

The files listed appear to be the correct ones for the Iomega DOS USB drivers and for PC-DOS boot files.

I am comfortable that my copy of Ghost was updated to all the last and most recent version of those files--here's my listing for the *Properties* of these files in Windows Explorer:

aspiehci.sys   size:  52,106 bytes  created:  8/14/2002  modified 5/28/2003

guest.exe      size:  32,396 bytes  created:  8/14/2002  modified 8/14/2002

Quote:
Should the files on the bootdisk include one called GUEST.EXE?

*aspiehci.sys* mounts your USB controller in DOS so DOS has access to the USB controller and any *mass storage device* that's attached.  *guest.exe* is the program that searches for any *mass storage devices* attached to your USB controller for any DOS partitions--if found, the next available DOS drive letter that is available is assigned to the DOS partition.

To be honest--I have never experimented to see if USB NTFS partitions show up in Ghost if only the *aspiehci.sys* is loaded without *guest.exe*--but my suspicion is they probably would--if everything else is working compatibly--probably only DOS partitions would not show up without *guest.exe*.

Quote:
Is the line 'SET TZ=GHO+00:00' correct?

Here's a discussion about DOS *TZ* (time zone) settings--the reference is for another imaging program, but it applies equally to Ghost in DOS:  How to Set a Time Zone for Image for DOS
 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

No question is stupid ... but, possibly the answers are Wink !
 
IP Logged
 
TheShadow
Kahuna
*****
Offline


Old Ghost user!

Posts: 613
Florida, USA


Back to top
Re: Are these bootdisk files correct?
Reply #3 - Oct 15th, 2008 at 12:56pm
 
But...........is it necessary for Ghost 2003 being run from a floppy disk?

I've always left it IN, just for GP.

But I believe I've also taken it out with no problems.

What do you find? Undecided

Cool

 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
voximan
Technoluster
***
Offline


I Love Radified!

Posts: 115
England, UK


Back to top
Re: Are these bootdisk files correct?
Reply #4 - Oct 15th, 2008 at 6:36pm
 
NightOwl,

You seem to be saying that I SHOULD be seeing GUEST.EXE among the files on the bootdisk. Well, that file is not there, on my bootdisk. I do recall it being on earlier bootdisks I made and that's why I asked about it. I've tried re-making the bootdisk many times but guest.exe is not among the files any more.

Should GUEST.EXE be just one of the main files on the bootdisk, or should it be contained in autoexec.bat?

I've been wondering whether the lack of this file might have something to do with the strange problem I've been having with Ghost not seeing (in PC-DOS) both my ext USB drive and my main internal IDE drive simultaneously.

It's late now but tomorrow I'll check the Properties of my aspiehci.sys and report back here
 
 
IP Logged
 
voximan
Technoluster
***
Offline


I Love Radified!

Posts: 115
England, UK


Back to top
Re: Are these bootdisk files correct?
Reply #5 - Oct 16th, 2008 at 5:56am
 
One of the confusions I'm having to endure at present is that, over the years and especially of late, I've acquired several versions of bootdisk that I've made. This has not made my disc recognition problem in the DOS environment of Ghost 2003 easy to investigate. For the more recent bootdisks, made under WinXP, I have also Build 775 and 793 versions. Running all of these last night on my now WinXP system, I discovered that not only does a different Iomega driver load, depending on the version, but also the disk recognition problem sometimes reversed. That is, when trying to image my root partition on the main drive to the ext drive (Partition > Image), in one case the main drive was not recognised, in the other case the ext drive was not recognised - and that was with the ext drive switched on in both cases. This is a new piece of evidence which strongly suggests that recognition of BOTH drives by Ghost in PC-DOS is critically influenced by the version of the Iomega driver. Indeed, Nigel Bree, our Symantec man, has revealed elsewhere in these forums that Symantec played around and changed the Iomega driver some years ago. Also, I can't quite put my finger on it but I've a suspicion that updating to Build 793 using the Symantec Archival Server is not always successful, and may not have been in MY case - yes, the application gets left with the label 'Build 793' but possibly files end up either corrupted or missing and consequently when you make a bootdisk, you end up making a useless one.

This is probably stating the obvious, but the version of aspiehci.sys that one sees (either by way of the onscreen DOS script or by doing a Properties on the file) depends on when the bootdisk was made and which Build of the application is in force. For instance, I have a bootdisk that I used to use on my old dualboot system and which was made under Win2K. With that bootdisk, the Build was 793, having been updated at a time when the standard LiveUpdate server was still operational. It worked perfectly, albeit that, at that time, I was using a smaller capacity main drive than now; there was never a disk recognition problem. On that bootdisk, the 'modified' date of the aspiehci.sys is 28th May 2003 and the size is 52,106 bytes.

I now need to repeat the analysis of my bootdisk files I did last night, so that I can demonstrate to you how this driver changes according to Build, etc. The impression I'm getting is that, rather than my BIOS being at fault, the problem lies in that Iomega driver and possibly also the lack of GUEST.EXE in some instances (though I'm not sure that GUEST.EXE is actually needed because, in PC-DOS, driveletters per se are, by default, not used). Of course, what actually gets transferred to the bootdisk depends on the options you choose when making the bootdisk, ie. whether USB1.1 or USB2.0 support. I assume that aspiehci.sys is the USB2.0 version (enhanced).

 
 
IP Logged
 

voximan
Technoluster
***
Offline


I Love Radified!

Posts: 115
England, UK


Back to top
Re: Are these bootdisk files correct?
Reply #6 - Oct 16th, 2008 at 9:52am
 
Right, I've now completed the analysis of all my bootdisks. Here, first of all, are the background conditions common to all five bootdisks:

250GB PATA main IDE HDD, with NTFS partitions.
250GB ext USB HDD, with NTFS partitions, connected via the PC's embedded bus, not via a hub. Switched on.
Aspiehci.sys date and size as read in its Properties on the bootdisk.
USB2.0 ext drive support.
No driveletters assigned in PC-DOS.
Apart from me changing the original 80GB main IDE HDD that was used in my dualboot arrangement of a few years ago to the now bigger 250GB HDD (now running only WinXP), there have been no changes in the PC hardware.

The results below are what I've found by trying to run these bootdisks ON MY NOW WINXP SINGLE-BOOT SETUP:-

Build 793, made about 3 yrs ago under Win2K, for my then Win2K/XP dualboot system. Build 793 was obtained by a normal LiveUpdate

aspiehci.sys 28th May 2003 52,106 bytes.
Ext drive found by Ghost.
Guest.exe not found on bootdisk.
RESULT: IN PC-DOS, ONLY EXT DRIVE AND ITS PARTITIONS CURRENTLY VISIBLE. IN THE ORIGINAL DUALBOOT SETUP OF A FEW YEARS AGO, BOTH DRIVES WERE VISIBLE AND THERE WAS NO PROBLEM IN IMAGING, CLONING OR RESTORING.

Build 793, made about 3 yrs ago under WinXP, for my then Win2K/XP dualboot system. Not used at that time.

aspiehci.sys 14th Aug 2002 49,750 bytes.
No ext drive found by Ghost.
Guest.exe 14th Aug 2002 32,396 bytes.
RESULT: IN PC-DOS, ONLY MAIN DRIVE AND ITS PARTITIONS CURRENTLY VISIBLE.

Build 793 but with additional ext drivers manually added, made about 3 yrs ago under Win2K.

aspiehci.sys 28th May 2003 52,106 bytes.
Ext drive found by Ghost.
Guest.exe 14th Aug 2002 32.396 bytes.
RESULT: IN PC-DOS, ONLY EXT DRIVE AND ITS PARTITIONS CURRENTLY VISIBLE.

Build 775, made recently under WinXP. Update to 775 using Symantec Archive server.

aspiehci.sys 14th Aug 2002 49,750 bytes.
No ext drive found by Ghost.
Guest.exe 14th Aug 2002 32,396 bytes.
RESULT: IN PC-DOS, ONLY MAIN DRIVE AND ITS PARTITIONS CURRENTLY VISIBLE.

Build 793, made recently under WinXP. Update to 793 using Symantec Archive server.

aspiehci.sys 28th May 2003 52,106 bytes.
Ext drive found by Ghost.
Guest.exe not found on bootdisk.
RESULT: IN PC-DOS, ONLY EXT DRIVE AND ITS PARTITIONS CURRENTLY VISIBLE.

I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me exactly what's going on!

The presence of Guest.exe on the bootdisk seems instrumental in making the main IDE drive visible. But why is that file on some bootdisks but not on others?

The $64,000 question is How can I arrange that BOTH drives be visible concurrently, the normal situation?

 
 
IP Logged
 
NightOwl
Radministrator
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 5826
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound--USA


Back to top
Re: Are these bootdisk files correct?
Reply #7 - Oct 17th, 2008 at 1:00am
 
@
 voximan

Quote:
You seem to be saying that I SHOULD be seeing GUEST.EXE among the files on the bootdisk.

Nope--didn't mean that at all--meant just what I said--I've never excluded it from my boot files.  Reason being--all my USB external HDD's have at least a DOS FAT partition, and usually a NTFS partition as well--so I always want a DOS letter assigned to the DOS partition--and you have to have *guest.exe* (or other similar program) to assign a DOS drive letter if you want access to the USB DOS partition when booting to DOS.

If my USB HDD is off or disconnected, then those DOS boot files simply give an error message that a usable partition was not found--and it proceeds to continue the boot process.

Been thinking about your statement that you see the *guest.exe* on some boot disks and not on others--I played around with the Ghost Boot Wizard--and you can demonstrate why that's happening--it all depends on whether you leave the default check where it says *assign DOS drive letters* when you select which USB DOS driver in the initial setup steps.  If you do, when you get to the last step before creating the floppy disk, you get a summary of what the wizard will be placing on the disk--if you elected to *assign* DOS letters, the wizard includes *guest.exe*, and if you have unchecked that, then *guest.exe* will not be included--try it and you'll see!
 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

No question is stupid ... but, possibly the answers are Wink !
 
IP Logged
 
voximan
Technoluster
***
Offline


I Love Radified!

Posts: 115
England, UK


Back to top
Re: Are these bootdisk files correct?
Reply #8 - Oct 17th, 2008 at 5:38am
 
Yes, hitherto, I'd been wondering what function guest.exe served and, before seeing your reply NightOwl, I'd concluded that it probably had something to do with the assignment of driveletters in DOS. I'm actually about to make yet another bootdisk, to test that out.

Looking at what's on the various bootdisks I've got, one could be forgiven for concluding that if guest.exe (14th Aug 2002, 32,396 bytes) were on the same bootdisk as aspiehci.sys 28th May 2003 52,106, then BOTH drives would be seen. I'm aiming to give that a go. However, I somehow suspect that only one drive, still, will be visible.

 
 
IP Logged
 
voximan
Technoluster
***
Offline


I Love Radified!

Posts: 115
England, UK


Back to top
Re: Are these bootdisk files correct?
Reply #9 - Oct 17th, 2008 at 9:13am
 
I've now made and run that further bootdisk. Although putting guest.exe on it by opting for assignment of driveletters, it made no difference to my particular problem. Only the ext drive was visible.
 
 
IP Logged
 
NightOwl
Radministrator
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 5826
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound--USA


Back to top
Re: Are these bootdisk files correct?
Reply #10 - Oct 17th, 2008 at 9:22am
 
@
 voximan

Quote:
it made no difference to my particular problem. Only the ext drive was visible

Unfortunate!  But *guest.exe* is not the likely problem driver--it's most likely the *aspiehci.sys* driver that's not up to speed.

Quote:
The $64,000 question is How can I arrange that BOTH drives be visible concurrently, the normal situation?

Willing to try an alternate DOS USB driver?  I'm working today and don't have time until this evening--but a non-Norton Ghost USB DOS driver may offer a solution: A Better USB 2.0 DOS Driver for Ghost + More!

I can walk you through the steps on how to modify your current Ghost boot disk to try this other driver out!
 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

No question is stupid ... but, possibly the answers are Wink !
 
IP Logged
 

voximan
Technoluster
***
Offline


I Love Radified!

Posts: 115
England, UK


Back to top
Re: Are these bootdisk files correct?
Reply #11 - Oct 18th, 2008 at 4:45am
 
I disagree, The aspiehci.sys driver I'm using is the same one that's worked with this very same USB drive before and which is the same driver as various people in these forums are successfully using. The problem, in my case, is not the recognition by Ghost of my ext USB, it's the non-recognition of my main IDE drive, so it's not a USB driver that appears to be at fault.

 
 
IP Logged
 
NightOwl
Radministrator
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 5826
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound--USA


Back to top
Re: Are these bootdisk files correct?
Reply #12 - Oct 18th, 2008 at 8:56am
 
@
 voximan

Quote:
I disagree, The aspiehci.sys driver I'm using is the same one that's worked with this very same USB drive before

Really?  Then what's your alternative working hypothesis?

You've made a hardware change--kept the software the same--it's either a system/hardware incompatibility problem with the introduction of the large internal HDD (you can read that as a BIOS problem), or it's a hardware/software driver incompatibility brought on by the new combination of hardware.

Quote:
which is the same driver as various people in these forums are successfully using

Well, I guess I've been reading the *tea leaves* differently--the most common complaint on this forum has been that the Iomega USB DOS driver supplied by Symantec has *not* been compatible with a person's system/external HDD setup.

You indicated in the previous thread that you are not interested in testing if the problem is the 128 GB barrier for HDD size--a BIOS issue.  And, if you don't want to try an alternate USB driver to see if that helps--a software issue--well, as I said before--that's your call!
 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

No question is stupid ... but, possibly the answers are Wink !
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print