it would be impossible for anybody to respond conclusively unless they have the actual system you mention, which i doubt anyone does. and even then there's no guaranty.

you could always test it to see for yourself, which is what i'd do, or grab a newer version of ghost, or even try something like clonezilla.

http://mt4.radified.com/2009/05/clonezilla-best-free-hard-drive-backup-solution....

with that said, i see no reason why not.

George

ASUS M4A79 Deluxe Review

Nice specs!

Quote:

It's a little unclear as to how you intend to use Ghost.

With only one HDD, I assume you are either going to put images on a separate partition on that HDD--or plan on burning images to an optical writer. 

If the former, then you only will have half the protection that backup images offer--if that single HDD fails, not only does the actual OS get lost, but so too the backup image(s)!

If the latter, that's a very slow imaging process--if you're not going to image often, then that's probably not a big issue!  And, compatibility between Ghost and optical writers is a common issue--the only way Ghost can write to an optical drive is if Ghost's built-in writing software recognizes the optical drive--a 5-6 year old Ghost 2003 software may not be up to date with 2009 optical drive hardware!

And, make sure you do an *Integrity* check of the image file on the optical disc(s)--the most common problem reported when using optical discs is that the image procedure *seemed* to go well, but the Integrity was never checked, and when it comes time to restore--nothing!  That's really a bad feeling!

Quote:

Are you planning on putting all those OSs on the system?  Even if just Linux, then you will probably have a special boot loader--that means the default behavior of Ghost 2003 will only back up the absolute 0 sector of the Master Boot Tract--and the boot loader will be somewhere in sectors 1 thru 62--and will not be included in a backup image unless you use the *-ib* (image boot) switch that tells Ghost to back up the entire boot tract (0-62) so that boot loader is not left out!

If restores will always be to the same HDD, and only partition restores--then the restoring the Master Boot Tract will not be an issue!

Quote:

I've never been a fan of this concept of using Ghost images--*I'm installing Windows *clean* and I want an image of that pristine point in time so I can restore it if something goes wrong......*

Problem is--*Life Happens!*  I last installed WinXP on my system 5 years ago--I would loose everything done since then if I installed a *pristine* image created back then to my system now--there have been so many changes, new programs installed, etc.--it really is not even a little bit of a benefit to want to consider going back!!!  Even installing a restore image that is 6 months or a year old would be a large loss.  I use Ghost to keep recent images--usually every 2-4 weeks between new image creation (unless I'm doing a major install--I always create a new image prior to that just in case something might go wrong!)--and I keep images going back approx. 3-6 months--but I would never want to restore those *older* images unless I had to--I keep them for retrieving individual files if they were needed.

Quote:

That's a big + when using Ghost 2003--booting from a floppy drive can be a much easier solution than other possibilities--maybe not quite as fast in booting--but much greater flexibility!

Quote:

Personally, (and a lot depends on how you actually plan on using Ghost) I'd put a second IDE UDMA/ATA100 HDD on that controller, and switch to a SATA optical burner.  Use the first HDD to have my OS and other data partitions as needed, and use the second HDD to hold Ghost image files, etc.

But, if your intention is to burn Ghost images to optical discs, then it is not likely that Ghost 2003 would be compatible with a SATA optical burner--so be appropriately advised!

If you add a SATA HDD--that can be a problem for some systems and Ghost 2003!  Sometimes you have to change the SATA *mode* in the BIOS so it will run DOS based programs such as Ghost 2003.  Apparently SATA HDD controllers have been optimized to run under the newer NT based Windows OSs--but, then DOS fails! (Oh, the *details*!)

(Curiosity question--why not SATA HDD's in the first place (that is the current *latest and greatest* technology!)--other than the possibility they might cause some compatibility problems with DOS based programs?)

So, it's all *in the details* what will work--or not!  Most likely Ghost 2003 will be fine with WinXP--it was designed to work under that OS without trouble (although, most of the problems reported here are with the Windows Ghost interface--if something is going to go wrong, it's most likely to occur there!).  Having a floppy drive to boot from is a good thing--Ghost 2003's Boot Wizard can only create 1.44 MB boot floppy disks (you can possibly port those to bootable optical discs using various optical disc authoring programs).

Let us know how things work out!

The original plan was 2k and XP on one ide drive, with Win7 on seperate drive.
A better plan but time constaints leave me with adding 2k and Linux at a later date, if at all.

Anyhow, thanks and let me know what you think, I'm getting ready to clone in the a.m.

George

Been out of town last couple days--back now.....

Quote:

Nope!  That switch is to make Ghost do its thing *automatically* without any user inputs--of course you have to have added the needed command line switches that tells Ghost exactly what to do--and if your commands are incorrect, then the results will also be incorrect!

So the *Sure* switch is telling Ghost that you are *positive* that you want Ghost to proceed without any further warnings or user inputs.

Quote:

The *Sure* switch is available on *all* versions of Ghost that uses the command line functionality--i.e. DOS based versions of Ghost.  The Ghost 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15 are not based on the DOS version of Ghost, but on DriveImage by PowerQuest--it can not run in DOS and does not operate from the command line--so the *Sure* switch does not exist on those versions.

Quote:

From the Ghost interface, you select *Local > Check > Image File*--you then navigate to the file you want to check and select it and follow the rest of the steps to do the *Integrity* check.

You can automate the Integrity check with an appropriate command line using the *-chkimg,filename* switch where *filename* would include the full path plus the Ghost file name--for example:

ghost.exe -chkimg,K:\Ghost_XP\1108\1108.GHO

Quote:

With Ghost 2003, you have a Windows interface where you can setup and begin the various Ghost procedures, but to actually do the procedure, Ghost will close down Windows, boot to DOS, do the procedure, and then boot back to Windows (if everything works without any glitches  !)  Ghost 10 based on DriveImage is a Windows only based program, so an Integrity check can be done from within Windows because that's the only way it actually works!

Quote:

Ghost may or may not *ignore* SATA when you run the DOS based program.  The newer versions are SATA *aware*, and if a SATA controller is *seen*, it might try to mount that controller to determine if a HDD is attached--if Ghost is not compatible with that particular controller--or the controller is not set to be compatible with DOS based programs, then potentially Ghost could freeze when it attempts to communicate with the controller!

An older version of Ghost that is not SATA aware, would probably simply ignore the presence of the SATA controller--regardless of whether it's enabled, disabled and does or does not have a HDD connected.