Welcome, Guest. Please Login
 
  HomeHelpSearchLogin FAQ Radified Ghost.Classic Ghost.New Bootable CD Blog  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7 (Read 53454 times)
NightOwl
Radministrator
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 5801
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound--USA


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #30 - Feb 21st, 2010 at 9:34am
 
@
Brian

As always--thank you very much!
 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #31 - Feb 28th, 2010 at 8:12am
 
NightOwl,
I wasn't ignoring you ... Cool ... I've been in Austria during the past week! Six days with sunshine out of eight and good snow conditions above 1500 meters (that's 5000 feet to most of you) altitude.
 

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



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #32 - Apr 1st, 2010 at 2:56pm
 
I have been fooling around with the new BOAC and I started by installing Windows XP to create and format all partitions before Windows 7 sees the hard disks.

My first experience was that hooking up the three hard disks to the SATA_0, SATA_1 and SATA_2 ports (the DVD to the SATA_3 port) produced a wonderful mix of masters and slaves in the BIOS. I hooked them up one by one and partitioned/formated prior to hooking up the next. I didn't reflect on the mix but thought that the "SATA-crap" still hadn't been sorted. Well, when everything had been partitioned and formated, it was a mess.

The partition numbers are how the partitions appeared in Ghost and the drive letters from Windows Disk Management:

1:1 = C:
1:2 = D:
2:1 = G:
2:2 = H:
3:1 = E:
3:2 = F:

(The order of creation was C:, D:, E:, F:, G: and H:)

In Disk Management, the first disk to be hooked up (on SATA_0) became Disk0 (1:1-2 with C: and D:), the second (on SATA_1) became Disk2 (3:1-2 with E: and F:) and the third (on SATA_2) became Disk1 (2:1-2 with G: and H:).

I had to take a good read of the MB manual to sort it out and by creating a folder on each partition (!-C, !-D and so forth) I finally identified which SATA ports were designated as masters and which were designated as slaves. Finally, the three hard disks and the DVD got hooked up as masters on channel 0-3 which produced a logical order in Windows Disk Management as well as in Ghost:

SATA_0 became Disk0 (1:1-2 with C: and D:) and master on channel 0

SATA_1 became Disk1 (2:1-2 with E: and F:) and master on channel 1

SATA_2 and SATA_3 were not used because they were assigned as slaves on channel 0 and channel 1 respectively.

SATA_4 became Disk2 (3:1-2 with G: and H:) and master on channel 2

SATA_5 received the DVD as master on channel 3

I just love ... Roll Eyes ... the logic and am happy to not be configuring any RAID setup.

Anyway, the end result was logical and reduces the potential of making mistakes:

1:1 = C:
1:2 = D:
2:1 = E:
2:2 = F:
3:1 = G:
3:2 = H:

Next, I installed Windows 7 (formating C: in the process).

I created an Image, Partition-to-Image (target on 3:2), of 1:1 and an Image, Disk-to-Image (target on 3:2), of 1:1-2.

The P-to-I was restored to 1:1 and the system booted right up.

The D-to-I was restored to 1:1-2 and the system didn't boot but had to be repaired using the Windows 7 DVD.

I had not changed anything on 1:1-2 but during the setting up of the restore D-to-I, Ghost suggested the original size for 1:1 but a smaller size (~½ of the original) for 1:2 with some unallocated space left behind. I changed the value to use the full disk space. I wonder why this happened because, as I recall previous tests, if restored D-to-I to the same hard disk, Ghost does not alter the sizes. Maybe my teflon coated memory fails me?

No matter what, the repair is quick and not too much of a nuisance.

(I have not had time to learn about BootItNG. That is one for the future.)
 

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


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

Posts: 5801
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound--USA


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #33 - Apr 2nd, 2010 at 12:38pm
 
@
Christer

Thanks for sharing your experience!  This doesn't sound *easy*!

Quote:
I had to take a good read of the MB manual to sort it out and by creating a folder on each partition (!-C, !-D and so forth) I finally identified which SATA ports were designated as masters and which were designated as slaves.

So, you used those to confirm what was in the Motherboard's (MB) manual--or was that information just not stated in a usable fashion?

I wonder, is this MB specific--or is there an agreed upon standard for how SATA controllers are setup to work on all MB's?

I've seen reference to being able to go into the BIOS on newer MBs and select which drive to boot from--doesn't have to be like the old IDE standard where the HDD has to be on the primary controller, and on the master channel.  If you select a drive that is something other than *primary, master*--does the drive letter C:\ get assigned to that HDD--even though it will be detected in a different order by a DOS or WinPE program that follows the Microsoft way of detecting hardware for drive letter assignments prior to being able to use the registry to remember the drive letter assignments!


Quoting myself above:

Quote:
the Microsoft way of detecting hardware for drive letter assignments

Actually, I'm not sure *who* is in charge of determining the order that devices and partition get assigned drive letter first, second, etc.--does Microsoft's software arrange things--or is it a standardized sequence that the BIOS presents the devices to Microsoft's software that then is assigning drive letters--I don't know how this is being regulated.....

Order in Which MS-DOS and Windows Assign Drive Letters

Sure looks like it's the order that the BIOS presents the HDDs to the software that determines who's first, etc..

And more reading:  Google search:  what controls sequence for drive letter assignment.


I also assume that even though you might be able to select which drive to boot from--does it still have to be the *active, primary partition*, and the other primaries (if present) are not *Active*--just holding data, etc.--I know you can change that behavior if using a boot loader such as BING--but if using Microsoft's boot--is the *primary, active* designation still required?

Just asking for general knowledge sake  Wink --no worry if it's not known!
 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

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



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #34 - Apr 2nd, 2010 at 5:50pm
 
NightOwl,
I don't remember if I mentioned which MB I work with but it is the Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD4 and its Manual.

Quote:
So, you used those to confirm what was in the Motherboard's (MB) manual--or was that information just not stated in a usable fashion?

Well, I have to confess that I didn't read the whole MB manual prior to messing things up. I did that all by myself ... Roll Eyes ... !

I did find the section "internal connectors", in which there is a drawing of the SATA ports with their respective number, SATA2_0 > SATA2_5. I assumed that the days of Master and Slave were history, as long as the IDE port wasn't used. I simply hooked up the drives onto the SATA2 ports in the desired order. When things didn't turn out as expected, I had a look in the BIOS section, "standard CMOS features". There is a listing of the different IDE channels, and that's when it got complicated:

Channel 0 Master
Channel 0 Slave
Channel 1 Master
Channel 1 Slave
Channel 2 Master
Channel 3 Master
Channel 4 Master
Channel 4 Slave
Channel 6 Master
Channel 6 Slave
Channel 7 Master
Channel 9 Master
Channel 9 Slave

That counts 13 channels and there are 1xFDD, 1xIDE (2 drives), 6xSATA2, 2xSATA3 and 2xeSATA which makes 13 possible devices but the channel numbering is clear as mud ... Lips Sealed ... !

Since all partitions, except for C:, were empty, I "tagged" the partitions with folders indicating their respective drive letter in Windows to find out which was which in Ghost. "Tagging" was just a means of quick identification in Ghost and it helped since there is no reference (that I have found) in the MB manual of which port connects to which channel.

The only logic is that the order in which the hard disks and partitions are displayed in Windows Disk Management is the same in Ghost, no matter to which ports they are connected.

The first hard disk was connected to SATA2_0, channel 0 Master, was partitioned C: and D: > no problems.

The second hard disk was connected to SATA2_1, channel 1 Master, was partitioned E: and F: > no problems.

The third hard disk was connected to SATA2_2, channel 0 Slave, was partitioned G: and H: > problems! In Disk Management, the third hard disk was displayed as Disk1, moving the second hard disk down to Disk2.

So, by "tagging" the partitions I managed to find out which port connected to which channel. It took some shifting around of the hard disks but the end result was the desired result.

Quote:
I wonder, is this MB specific--or is there an agreed upon standard for how SATA controllers are setup to work on all MB's?

I checked another Gigabyte MB, the GA-790XTA-UD4 (manual) which is an AM3 board and it is different. (I haven't identified which port connects to which channel on that one. That has to wait until the next AMD-build.)

Quote:
I've seen reference to being able to go into the BIOS on newer MBs and select which drive to boot from--doesn't have to be like the old IDE standard where the HDD has to be on the primary controller, and on the master channel.

You can select "hard disk boot priority", in this case CH0.M, CH1.M, CH2.M and you just move them up/down.

Quote:
If you select a drive that is something other than *primary, master*--does the drive letter C:\ get assigned to that HDD--even though it will be detected in a different order by a DOS or WinPE program that follows the Microsoft way of detecting hardware for drive letter assignments prior to being able to use the registry to remember the drive letter assignments!

I don't know but I don't think so. The BIOS know nothing of drive letters, only positions on the controller(s).

Quote:
Sure looks like it's the order that the BIOS presents the HDDs to the software that determines who's first, etc..

Yes, I think that Windows "reads" the BIOS to find out which drives are connected and it gets them in the "BIOS order". My problems arose when connecting the hard disks in sequence onto the ports. I still don't understand why channel 0 Slave (SATA2_2) took priority over channel 1 Master (SATA2_1)?

Quote:
I also assume that even though you might be able to select which drive to boot from--does it still have to be the *active, primary partition*, and the other primaries (if present) are not *Active*--just holding data, etc.--I know you can change that behavior if using a boot loader such as BING--but if using Microsoft's boot--is the *primary, active* designation still required?

Installing XP on a fresh, unpartitioned hard disk, creating the partition onto which XP is to be installed during the initial stages, results in an active partition, C:. I don't know how Windows 7 does it because I decided to install XP to partition and format all partitions before Windows 7 sees the hard disks. The objective was/is to not make it possible for Windows 7 to create that pesky 100 MB partition it thinks it needs but it can do without.
 

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


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

Posts: 5801
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound--USA


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #35 - Apr 5th, 2010 at 1:33am
 
@
Christer

Several quick comments--I'm pressed for time, but will answer more fully later:

Of course, the drive letter assignments are specific to the WinXP installation--and the one-by-one addition of eacy additional HDD.  If you installed Win7 with all the HDD's installed--it's entirely possible that the drive letters assigned by Win7 could be quite different!

And the Ghost drive # and partition # that is used if all the partitions on the various HDDs are NTFS partitions, would not have any relationship to what DOS would assign to those partitions if they where of a FAT type!  But, those Ghost assignments of drive # are the order in which the BIOS is presenting the drives and partitions to Ghost--and presumably that's how the drives and partitions are presented to Windows as well--so the Ghost drive # should match the Disk Management disk #--but the drive letter assignments may be assigned using a different sequence!

Giving each partition a meaningful partition name--or a identifiably partition size that is unique on each drive would give you another way to tract which drive is seen on which SATA port, in Ghost, and Windows.

When you do a *Local > To Partition > From Image*--Ghost does not zero out the destination drive's NT-signature--so I'd expect a restore of a partition would boot fine!

But, when you do a *Local > To Disk > From Image*--the default Ghost setting is to zero the drive's NT-signature.  If you have the standard install of Win7 that uses the new BC-Store for booting--if the NT-signature changes because it was erased by Ghost--then boot failure occurs--that was true of Win Vista--and now of Win7!

You can use the command line Ghost switch *-fdsp* to tell Ghost not to zero the NT-signature of the Destination HDD--this should allow the restore of the disk image to the original source HDD without loosing boot-ability.   Or, you could do the BC Edits that where necessary for Vista--and once you make those changes, then Win7 will boot in the same manner as WinXP--not looking for the HDD with a specific NT-signature--but instead just for the first primary, active partition on the first HDD seen.


See this discussion:  Ghost 2003/Ghost 8.2 and Windows Vista , especially starting here:  reply #70!
 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #36 - Apr 6th, 2010 at 3:37am
 
NightOwl,

Quote:
You can use the command line Ghost switch *-fdsp* to tell Ghost not to zero the NT-signature of the Destination HDD--this should allow the restore of the disk image to the original source HDD without loosing boot-ability.

I'll do a test using that switch but it will have to wait a day or two.
 

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



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #37 - Apr 7th, 2010 at 8:17am
 
Quote:
I'll do a test using that switch but it will have to wait a day or two.

I added the "-fdsp" switch to the Ghost floppies and created a Partition-To-Image and a Disk-To-Image. I restored both (in succession with a reboot in between) and the computer booted right up after both restores.

(As an aside: The "-fdsp" switch is the only switch I use. No problems with detecting SATA drives or NTFS partitions as are discussed in other topics. When installing Windows 7, unlike when installing Windows XP, I didn't have to provide SATA drivers. It seems like either the BIOS or the Windows 7 DVD sorts that.)
 

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



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #38 - Apr 7th, 2010 at 8:30am
 
I forgot to mention:

During setting up the Disk-From-Image restore, Ghost suggested the following sizes:

1:1 > new size = 95385 MB > old size = 95385 MB
Apparently unchanged, I left that one as it was suggested.

1:2 > new size = 344401 MB > old size 858481 MB
I edited "new size" to 858481 MB.

In Windows 7 > Disk Management, the sizes were exactly, to the last byte, as prior to restoring the images.
 

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


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

Posts: 5801
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound--USA


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #39 - Apr 10th, 2010 at 1:32am
 
@
Christer

Quote:
I added the "-fdsp" switch to the Ghost floppies and created a Partition-To-Image and a Disk-To-Image. I restored both (in succession with a reboot in between) and the computer booted right up after both restores.

Good!  You just verified that the Vista workaround works for Win7 as well!  Thanks for the testing and report back!

So, the other test is whether the BCEdits will also make it so Win7 acts like former WinXP.  I'm not completely sure, but I think the new Vista and Win7 BCStore for booting uses the disk NT-signature so that the boot drive can be other than the first active primary on the first seen HDD controller--meaning, if you install it on the SATA HDD hooked up to SATA port 0, and then later move it to SATA port 3, change the BIOS to boot from the HDD on SATA port 3, then Windows will see that the boot drive has the same NT-signature as it did when on SATA port 0, and it simply boots from that new location.

When you do the BCEdits, you now have told the OS to once again look for the first active primary on the first seen HDD controller.

That may not be entirely accurate--I've not tried to nail that down exactly--but, I hope it's in the ballpark!

If you have made an image of the boot drive before doing the BCEdits, and then restore that image--you probably restore the original BCStore and then it will not boot without a *boot repair*--because it's back to the way it was before doing the edits.

So, the point is, once you do the BCEdits, you must make new images and restore from them if you want the boot to succeed without having to do the *boot repair* going forward!

The BCEdits should make it so you don't have to use the *-fdsp* switch any longer!

Quote:
(As an aside: The "-fdsp" switch is the only switch I use. No problems with detecting SATA drives or NTFS partitions as are discussed in other topics. When installing Windows 7, unlike when installing Windows XP, I didn't have to provide SATA drivers. It seems like either the BIOS or the Windows 7 DVD sorts that.)

Well, that seems to indicate that Ghost 2003 is and the SATA controllers are set to compatible modes--see page 52 and 53 of the User Guide you mentioned in your reply # 34 above--the default setting for the SATA Control Mode is *IDE* and not *AHCI*--I think that's what's required to make them work together.  Although, I thought it was the *SATA Native Mode* setting that was needed--but it says the default is *Disabled*--what are your settings?  Both of those settings (i.e. Native Mode and Non-AHCI) have been mentioned as playing a role in SATA compatibility with Ghost 2003--although the most recent build of Ghost 2003 seems to have solved most problems!

As far as Win7's installation CD is concerned--apparently that installation CD already has the needed SATA controller drivers included on the CD--no need for the F6 sub-routine to add drivers.  WinXP on the other hand is quite a bit older than the motherboard you're working with--so not surprised the drivers are not included on the WinXP installation CD!
 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

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


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

Posts: 5801
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound--USA


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #40 - Apr 10th, 2010 at 1:41am
 
@
Christer

Quote:
I forgot to mention:

1:2 > new size = 344401 MB > old size 858481 MB
I edited "new size" to 858481 MB.

I have never quite figured out why Ghost 2003 sometimes suggest changes to the restored partition size when it's being restored to the same source HDD that the image came from.

But, there may be a *switch* for that!  Look on page 164 of the Ghost 2003 User Guide for the description of the *-szee* switch:

Quote:
-szee

Forces Norton Ghost to keep the sizes of all destination partitions the same as in the source
partition (no resizing).




That motherboard has some nice specifications--lots of options for what can be connected to that system!

Is this a new system you are building for yourself--or for someone else?
 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

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

NightOwl
Radministrator
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 5801
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound--USA


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #41 - Apr 10th, 2010 at 9:57am
 
@
Christer

I wanted to come back to your reply # 32 above where you sorted out which disk on which SATA port gave you which designated disk # in Windows Disk Management:

Looking at what you determined was necessary to get everything to line up in order in both Windows and Ghost, it certainly doesn't look like the motherboard User Manual offers much guidance!  Looking at page 48 in the MB User Manual--it does not seem to mirror what you report as the final arrangement!  Shouldn't the SATA ports listed on page 26 be correlated to what is listed in the BIOS as the various channels and master/slave designations as seen on that page 48?!

Quote:
Anyway, the end result was logical and reduces the potential of making mistakes:

1:1 = C:
1:2 = D:
2:1 = E:
2:2 = F:
3:1 = G:
3:2 = H:

Next, I installed Windows 7 (formating C: in the process).

Here's my question--did you just leave your three HDDs installed at this point?  And, did Win7 assign drive letters to match what you had ended up with previously with WinXP?

I can understand that Ghost would continue to see the HDDs as disk 1, 2, and 3 in the same order as before because the physical port they're hooked up to did not change (presumably!).  And, same for Win7's Disk Management--I would expect disk 0, 1, and 2 to remain in the same order because the physical port remained the same.

But, did the drive letter assignment come out correctly?!  You forced the drive letters to be assigned to the HDDs to be in a particular order originally by attaching only one HDD at a time--I follow the logic of why those would be assigned the drive letter in the order you intended.  But, if the HDDs are all hooked up at the same time when Win7 is installed--I wouldn't necessarily expect the drive letter to be assigned that same way as had been done with WinXP and the one by one addition of the HDDs.

My reason for saying that--based on reading how drive letters are assigned in pre-WinNT systems and pre-SATA controllers (and knowing it from experience  Wink )--most systems had a primary and secondary IDE controller--and each of those had a master and slave.  You had to hook up one HDD to the primary, master channel and create at least one primary, active partition if you wanted to boot.  In DOS, that would be assigned C:\.  If that first HDD also had a second partition--what drive letter that would be assigned to that 2nd partition depended on if a second (or third) HDD was also hooked up!  If no second or 3rd HDD, then the second partition would get D:\

But, if you had a second HDD--and you partitioned that 2nd HDD with at least one primary partition, then DOS would skip that 2nd partition on the first HDD, and assign the next DOS drive letter to the first seen primary on that 2nd HDD.  If there was a third HDD with a primary partition--DOS would assign the next drive letter to that one.  Once all HDDs seen in whatever physical order the BIOS presented them to DOS had a DOS drive letter assigned to the first seen primary partition, then DOS would return to the first HDD and look next for any logical drives in an Extended Partition.  DOS would assign all logical drives seen on the first HDD with DOS drive letters.  Then move onto the next seen HDD, etc.  Once all logical drives had drive letter assignments on each HDD, then DOS goes back to the first HDD and looks for any additional primary partitions and assigns those with a drive letter.  Then moves onto the next HDD, etc.

However, if you do not create a primary partition on any other 2nd, 3rd, ....etc. HDD--but instead only create an Extended Partition with only logical drives--then DOS will not have assigned any addition DOS drive letters until it comes back to that first HDD and then assigns all logical drives on that HDD.  So if it had one primary and one logical drive, you would have C:\ and D:\.  If the next HDD has two logical drives in an Extended Partition (and no primaries), then they would get E:\ and F:\.  And if a third HDD with two logical drives in and Extended Partition (again, no primaries)--they get G:\ and H:\--so the final sequence is the order you were trying to achieve with your SATA HDDs!

Of course, this all assumes that the various partitions are FAT and not NTFS partitions--DOS has to *see* the partitions in order to assign drive letters!  If you use NTFS partitions, then no DOS drive letters are assigned at all--that's why you report the Ghost partitions as drive #1 with partition 1 and 2--i.e. 1:1, 1:2, etc.

But, in your case, we are not looking at what DOS assigns--instead we're looking at what Windows assigns for drive letters!

My whole point being--you never mentioned how you partitioned each HDD--I assume NTFS because no DOS drive letters are seen in Ghost.  But, were they primary partitions--one or both, or were one or both created inside an Extended Partition as logical drives?  Did you partition the first HDD differently than the 2nd and 3rd HDD?

And, did you leave them all hooked up when you installed Win7--did all your drive letters assigned inside Windows line up as they had in WinXP when you installed one drive at a time?

Hopefully, all that makes some sense above--I'm just curious how Win7 handled assigning drive letters vs how DOS would have, given this new *order* based on SATA controllers with mysterious *master/slave* assignments!
 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

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



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #42 - Apr 13th, 2010 at 12:20pm
 
NightOwl,
just to let you know, I'm a bit tied up right now ... Embarrassed ... but will respond as soon as I can!
 

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


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

Posts: 5801
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound--USA


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #43 - Apr 13th, 2010 at 9:52pm
 
@
Christer

Quote:
just to let you know, I'm a bit tied up right now ...  ... but will respond as soon as I can!

No worry--no hurry!  I know all about being tied up and unable to answer--I pretty much assumed that was the case.......get to it when you can. 

Thanks for the heads-up.
 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

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


I Love Radified!

Posts: 200
california


Back to top
Re: Ghost 2003 strategy for Windows 7
Reply #44 - Apr 19th, 2010 at 8:37pm
 
i tried g2003 and g 11.5 backup of win 7 straight up with no modifiers -- no go. 

i give up. 

xp for me.
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print