Welcome, Guest. Please Login
 
  HomeHelpSearchLogin FAQ Radified Ghost.Classic Ghost.New Bootable CD Blog  
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
To use true image 2010 or not (Read 6184 times)
earl
Dude
*
Offline


I Love Radified!

Posts: 17


Back to top
To use true image 2010 or not
Jun 19th, 2010 at 8:45am
 
I dunno what to beleive some people love it some people hate it. I have norton ghost 2003. It just slow as hell some machinces will only do usb1. And if it is usb it a extra 6min no biggy. So my question is if your doing clones from machince to machine no imaging and it a single core xp machince. Is there no problems? Or am i saver to stay with norton ghost 2003 or norton ghost 11.5.1? If I don't get any errors and it sucessful am I ok?
 
 
IP Logged
 

OldCasper
Radmeister
**
Offline


I Love Ghost!

Posts: 92
Florida, USA


Back to top
Re: To use true image 2010 or not
Reply #1 - Jul 31st, 2010 at 4:56pm
 
With XP, Ghost 2003 or Ghost 11.5 either one works the same.
The biggest difference is that Ghost 11.5 is too big to fit on a floppy disk.  If you like running Ghost 2003 from a floppy, you won't like Ghost 11.5 at all.

But Ghost 11.5 will run just great from a bootable flash drive or a boot CD and will backup and restore Vista and Win-7, where Ghost 2003 won't.

So which to use, depends on what you want to do with it.

Luck!

 

A man with experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.
 
IP Logged
 
Dan Goodell
Special Guest
*****
Offline



Posts: 552
N California


Back to top
Re: To use true image 2010 or not
Reply #2 - Aug 1st, 2010 at 5:14pm
 
OldCasper wrote on Jul 31st, 2010 at 4:56pm:
Ghost 11.5 will run just great from a bootable flash drive or a boot CD and will backup and restore Vista and Win7, where Ghost 2003 won't.

Making a blanket statement like that is misleading.  I regularly use Ghost 2003 from a DOS-bootable flash drive to image and restore both Vista and Win-7.

The last update (.793) of Ghost 2003 does not have any trouble with the NTFS version used by Win7, nor does it have trouble with the new 2048-sector aligned partitions Vista/Win7 creates by default.  However, it does not understand the BCD store used by Vista/Win7, so if your image needs a BCD edit upon restoration, you're left to do that manually.

Depending on circumstances, some restores would need a BCD edit, but others would not.  For that reason, Ghost 2003 is probably not suitable for an imaging newbie, but for those with some tech savvy it's still a viable option.


 
 
IP Logged
 
Zig
Dude
*
Offline


I still don't trust Symantec!!

Posts: 10
Burlingame, California


Back to top
Re: To use true image 2010 or not
Reply #3 - Aug 25th, 2010 at 9:14pm
 
        Acronis 2010 is
CRAP
- doesn't work as advertised, scheduler doesn't run if computer in sleep mode, support limited to (unorganized & infrequently monitored) forum, many requests for further info that are later not followed up. I bought it for "nonstop backup" - which Acronis now freely  admits doesn't work - (a patch MAY be forthcoming for 2010, but no schedule - and 2011 now out). Don't hold your breath.
       In short, this is
BETAWARE
at best. You might try the 30 day trial of 2011, and follow the support forum, but avoid 2010 at all costs unless all you want to do is make an image (but Win 7 can do that on its own already).
 

Still trying to figure this all out
 
IP Logged
 
OldCasper
Radmeister
**
Offline


I Love Ghost!

Posts: 92
Florida, USA


Back to top
Re: To use true image 2010 or not
Reply #4 - Sep 11th, 2010 at 5:41pm
 
I'm testing ATI 2011 and it does work, with a few caveats.
I used it (installed) to make the Emergency Boot CD.  The CD made directly from the program would not boot my PC.  ATI 2010 did the same thing.
But when I let the program make an ISO for a boot CD, when I burned the ISO to a blank CD, it booted up my PC with no problem.

I used the boot CD to make a backup Image of my C: drive to my D: drive.  That worked just fine.   Unlike Ghost, ATI does not have a "Check" or Verify function to test the backup image file, so you're left to guess if the backup image file is really good or not. 

All told, I think I'll be continuing to use Ghost.
I can see absolutely NO advantage to using ATI. Cry

OT
 

A man with experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.
 
IP Logged
 
friendly_jacek
Gnarly
*
Offline



Posts: 47


Back to top
Re: To use true image 2010 or not
Reply #5 - Jan 4th, 2011 at 1:45pm
 
There is a verify function in 2009 ATI. The button is not placed in a logical place though.
I would be surprised 2010-11 would not have that important function.

ATI slowly grows on me. I like the interface better and there is a better mouse support compared to 2003 Ghost (hit and miss with my PCs).
 
 
IP Logged
 

OldCasper
Radmeister
**
Offline


I Love Ghost!

Posts: 92
Florida, USA


Back to top
Re: To use true image 2010 or not
Reply #6 - Jan 7th, 2011 at 11:54am
 
I think you hit the nail on the head with "hit or miss on my PC".  On most of my own PC's the mouse works great if I put "Mouse.com" in my autoexec.bat file on the Ghost boot disk. 
But in times past, I have seen a reluctance of some mice to work with that driver and Ghost 2003.  It forced me to learn how to use the keyboard instead of the mouse to run Ghost.
It's one of those instances, when life gives you lemons, you simply make Lemonade.
Much of whether a USB mouse will work with Ghost is dependent on how your motherboard treats its USB devices.
On some Mobo's , a USB mouse looks exactly like a PS2 mouse.  That's the case on my MSI mobo.

I've got ATI 2011 and I've tested it and it does seem to work well, if I use it like I would Ghost, from a Boot Disk.  But I still prefer Ghost, either 2003 or 11.5.
Old habits die hard, I guess.

Cheers mates!
O.T.
 

A man with experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print