TrueImage 8 vs. Ghost 9?

[LuckMan212]

has anyone done a fair review comparing these two, with pros/cons of each? They seem quite similar in capabilities, just wondering if there have been any review. Please no flames just looking for unbiased info & opinions.

[beenthereb4]

Just pray that you never have to boot from the Ghost 9.0 CD, you will need the patience of a saint since the WinPE based boot takes forever! As always YMMV.

[Red Barchetta]

As long as you are praying, you might also pray that you never try to use TI on a SATA drives in a RAID configuration. There is no or at best very limited support for this configuration.

I'm still waiting to see if Ghost 9.0 supports RAID >:( >:(

[luv2bsecure]

Ghost 9 is basically a continuation of the superb Powerquest Drive Image. Once you open the program -- it's all Drive Image from there. So any comparisons to OLD Ghost versions should be discarded.

One feature I like is its ability to mount images as just another drive letter so that the backup copy looks just like the original drive as a folder. If imaging a data partition for backup - this makes it really simple.

I've been a user of Drive Image 2002 from Powerquest and love it. Ghost 9 is just the next version (they purchased Powerquest for the DI technology which offers imaging with much greater simplicity than the old Ghost).

[Tipton]

-{ Quote: "As long as you are praying, you might also pray that you never try to use TI on a SATA drives in a RAID configuration. There is no or at best very limited support for this configuration.

I'm still waiting to see if Ghost 9.0 supports RAID >:( >:(" }-

I have used TI on my RAID 0 array many times. It works great.

Running an Asus P4C800E-Deluxe, and two Maxtor SATA drives in a RAID 0 array. That was one of the reasons I switched from ghost 2003, to TI, it supported my RAID array.

Tipton

[Tipton]

-{ Quote: " Ghost 9 is just the next version (they purchased Powerquest for the DI technology which offers imaging with much greater simplicity than the old Ghost)." }-

Hi luv2bsecure,

I used the "old ghost" 2003, and to me it was as simple as it can get. You could fit all files required for imaging and restoring, on a single floppy. You did not even have to install ghost on your system. The ghost boot floppy was quick to boot, and I never once had a problem with it untill I set up RAID. I have read all over the different online forums that the boot up time when using the Ghost 9 boot CD is super slow. I have not tried it personally, so it could very well be rumors. I think ghost 2003 users are going to have a hard time adjusting to ghost 9, since its actually a new version of drive image. It will be like switching to a whole new imaging solution.

Tipton

[Mr_Plant]

I picked up Norton Ghost 9 three days ago and have been running it ever since. I also use True Image v7.. Here are my initial thaughts...

Ghost 9 - forget the name its too misleading. Do a google search for Drive Image 7 and look at the screenshots. Replace all Drive Image graphic art with Ghost branded art... tada.. there you have Ghost 9... Ghost 9 IS drive image period! Only new trick it can do is to read the old ghost format.
You cannot make your own boot cd - you have to boot from the supplied rescue cd - windows recovery environment based (3 mins to boot).
You cannot MAKE images from this boot cd - very important point IMO!
You can ONLY make live images from the running windows xp partition. Ghost must be installed obviously along with the .Net Framework for it to run...Bloatware IMO! You can guarantee there will be no updates to this CD!

Incremental backups are nice. All images have worked and restored ok I should add..

Personally, I like to keep it simple - I like a boot cd - I like up to date builds... I trust imaging best when windows is not active.

I still use True Image 7!!

It seems True Image 8 has its problems and I for one hope they release a new version to address these problems soon.. as Acronis seems to be losing a very important thing... customer trust and loyalty...

I hope the can turn that around.. and quickly...

I used to recommend Acronis to everyone... now I am not so sure I can... at least at this time...

[luv2bsecure]

-{ Quote: "You cannot make your own boot cd - you have to boot from the supplied rescue cd - windows recovery environment based (3 mins to boot)." }-
I didn't know that - what a horrible idea! You are right about Ghost being just the new Drive Image, but in this case they removed the ability to boot from CD in Powerquest's last build of Drive Image 2002. Big mistake by Symantec, imo.

[6362]

-{ Quote: "has anyone done a fair review comparing these two, with pros/cons of each? They seem quite similar in capabilities, just wondering if there have been any review. Please no flames just looking for unbiased info & opinions." }-

Ok. My impressions are as follows:

Ghost 9 is only usable for work under Windows. It can easily be replaced by ntbackup, which is provided with NT4 upwards. The Recovery-CD is not able to create images. You can't build your own startdisk.

Ghost 2003 is delivered in addition with the Ghost 9 package. I was not able to create a bootdisk working with my 2 external USB 2.0/Firewire harddisks (Oxford chipset). I've tried all possibilities with this bootdisk assistant. For networking you need third party software not provided with Ghost 2003 CD (msclient).

Trueimage 8 has some bugs. I only tried the test version, the boot-cd wasn't able to access my network. It needs DHCP and DNS, networksetting can't be changed.

Trueimage 7 needs 5 floppy disks, the newest update 6 floppy disks. The Recovery-CD works good with network transfer and my USB/Firewire harddisks. Oh, the original version (build 555) crashed, but the latest update fixed this error. Now you can't change the network settings anymore as it is in TI8.

Did I mention that I took Ghost back to the store and bought Acronis TrueImage 7 instead?

Regards,

[rths]

Also note that Ghost 9 seems to always seems to be running in the background. It installs an icon in the system tray and there is no option available to disable it.

[Mr_Plant]

This is true, ghost does always seem to be running in the background all the time, cosuming around 18MB plus 6MB for the tray icon. Doesn't seem to make the system sluggish however...

Some other thaughts...

Ghost Boot Cd - I cannot access my network (I call it "HOMENET") - it only seems to show up networks named the default "WORKGROUP". I cannot find a way to get around this at all..

Incremental ghost backups are small and seem to work fine. No bad images so far..

I should point out that I have still not decided between keeping Ghost running or going back to trueimage 7.0 (from cd only).

Can anyone comment on how TrueImage 7.0 is if you only create backups from the boot cd - does incremental work? How does it know what sectors have changed if its not "monitoring" through windows - just the boot cd?

Anyone?

[presrc]

-{ Quote: "Ghost Boot Cd - I cannot access my network (I call it "HOMENET") - it only seems to show up networks named the default "WORKGROUP". I cannot find a way to get around this at all.." }-I found the same problem. The workaround is to map a network drive to your \\server\share. Type this in rather than browse. Server = the computer network name which has the backup image. Share = the network name of the folder. After this, the new drive will show up in browse windows

-{ Quote: "Can anyone comment on how TrueImage 7.0 is if you only create backups from the boot cd - does incremental work? How does it know what sectors have changed if its not "monitoring" through windows - just the boot cd?
" }-I assume you mean TrueImage 8.0 because of the incremental capability. My advice is to stay far away until they clean up what they have. Ghost 9.0 works but I wish Semantec had folded Drive Image into Ghost rather than Ghost into Drive Image. I think that the short run solution is Ghost 9.0. The long run solution might be True Image 9.0.

[JW Clements]

Mr. Blaze has a post about a Maxtor external drive with a 1-button disk to disk copy.
I use V-Com's Copy Commander, similar idea:
Shutdown and Turnoff system
connect the IDE drive to receive the copy
insert the V-Com diskette and boot to diskette
copy the RAID1 disk array to the IDE disk
turnoff system
disconnect the RAID1 array drives
remove the diskette
turnon system and boot to the IDE drive - ready to go
shutdown and turnoff system
disconnect IDE drive, reconnect SATA RAID1 drives
turnon system and boot to RAID1

This approach does require a second drive of the same capacity, but it's easier to store and keep track of than CDs and DVDs and it's ready to go as quickly as switching connections.

I have NTI BackupNow which creates bootable CDs, but it's nowhere as easy to use and had file name length limits which were troublesome when trying to restore the image to disk.

I also like the Maxtor alternative, but won't likely use it since what I have works very well.

I had to use the "restore" last weekend after the problems with AdAware 1.04, when somehow my registry hive became corrupted.

JMWODT

Jim

[666]

-{ Quote: "Also note that Ghost 9 seems to always seems to be running in the background. It installs an icon in the system tray and there is no option available to disable it." }-

TI is also running in the background. It just doesn't put a icon in the systray so most people never know it's there.

Here's a discussion on what hidden TI processes are running and how to get rid of them:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=43266

[rths]

Thanks for the info.

[Sini]

I've tested both, TrueImage was an amazing discovery for me because I've used Ghost from years and it was one the most reliable system for me.

I was waiting all the time to have a test with the new Ghost 9.0 vs TrueImage, yesterday I made the test and I'm very disapointed with Ghost 9.0, my expatation wheren't very high, if Ghost 9.0 would perform as good has TrueImage 8.0 server I would be a very happy man, because the licence of the server version of TrueImage is a little pricy for me.

But the bad news for me is that Ghost 9.0 has dissapointed me over all the line. Very classic interface, functionality: nearly a TI replica. Very slow: patition image of 27Gb to an usb 1.1 HDD took nearly 5 hours!!! Acronis True Image has spend 1h20 min less to make the same image, both with the default settings and the top of the bill: the Ghost image was 4Gb bigger than the Acronis one...

Very disapointing, I will have to purchase that pricy licence from Acronis :p

After years of Ghost we will definively switch over to Acronis True Image, the only expectation I still have is to find a product who can make an image from an Compact Flash or other memory cards...


Thank you for your attention ;)

[thill]

Ghost 9.0 is not the equivalent to True Image Server: try Symantec/Powerquest V2i; but a few hundred $'s more...

What Server OS are you running?

[Tsu]

-{ Quote: "Also note that Ghost 9 seems to always seems to be running in the background. It installs an icon in the system tray and there is no option available to disable it." }-

See GHOSTTRAY.EXE in the Task Manager

Starts in registry with with HKLM / Software / Microsoft / Windows / Current Version / RUN

[rths]

I have been running Acronis TI8 (Latest ver.) and Ghost 9 on 2 pc's. On 2 seperate ocassions, I have had to re-install TI8 because it cannot find my registration number. During this time Ghost 9 has not had any problems. I no longer have that warm and fuzzy feeling when using TI8. Its time to put TI8 to rest. I image my drives weekly and need imaging software that I can depend on. Good by TI8 forever. :'(

[r.leale@free.fr]

Hi All,
It seems that I shall have to spend a few $$$ and buy Ghost, TI screwed me up, I agree with rths!
Cleaned up XP Home with AdAware, Spybot, and then used TI to make an image of 'C' to a second HD which verified OK, then burnt a DVD of that image, which also verified OK.
Installed XP SP2 from a Microsoft CD and all seemed well for a few hours until I found that Benign wasn't working and the system suddenly slowed down.
Restored 'C' using the HD IMAGE - TI said restored OK but the reboot failed, frozen on XP splash screen. Last Good no good, into Safe Mode to try System Restore - didn't restore.
Desperate now, tried a restore of 'C' using the Acronis CD to boot, and tried to restore from the DVD image. TI would not recognise its own image on the DVD as a *.tib file!!! I ended up doing a repair installation of XP.

During this repair I found that the failures to boot were caused by my Olitec (Conexant chip) pci modem which has been transferred from machine to machine for more than four years, in spite of the Logo testing warnings. Apparently SP2 is more severe on this warning, because everytime I clicked on 'Install anyway' the machine shutdown and rebooted.

After all was sorted I slipstreamed an XP installation. Unfortunately, Sonic Record Now 7.0 DeLuxe would not burn a bootable CD, and after making four coasters I gave up, downloaded the demo of Nero 6, and burnt a bootable CD no problem, and first time.
So, Ghost and Nero here I come!!

Roger

[Welshjim]

Does Ghost 9 image NTFS volumes and can be used with WinXP running NTFS? I always understood that earlier versions did not. Maybe I had the wrong idea.

[iain]

Yes Ghost 9 does claim to image NTFS partitions within Win XP. In fact, it has no option for imaging them outside of Windows!

This is because, to respond to the earlier query about the tray icon, Ghost 9 runs as a Windows system service, not a stand-alone executable. So yes, it is always running - the tray icon isn't the service that actually carries out the imaging; it just lets you access the settings.

BUT - having said all this - I have had MAJOR PROBLEMS running Ghost 9 and am at my wits' end! It is unreliable to the point of uselessness. 9 times out of 10 it willl image 'successfully' but then report that 'the internal structure of the PQI file (ie. the backup image) is invalid or unsupported'. This happened on a brand new install of Windows XP on a SATA hard disk that had been scrubbed clean. Ghost was the ONLY program installed.

It seems from what I can gather that Ghost might not support SATA drives at all - let along RAID ones, but I don't know what RAID is; please could someone explain? I have only one drive, not an 'array'.

I've found various posts on the net mentioning that Ghost's technology (i.e. drive image) didn't support SATA in its last version. However it is all very mysterious because I do not see why it would work some of the time and not at other times.

I won't bore you with all the details of my system, I have troubleshooted it down to within an inch of its life and am sure it is not caused by any other program or service incompatibility.... but needless to say ANY tips or help would be immensely appreciated.

Thank you and goodnight!
iain

[planetbill]

Ghost 9 sucks. I've had nothing but problems and errors as I've been testing the purchased version. I'll probably get a refund. I originally tested Acronis, and shelved it because of lack or support; however it turns out Symantec has a least as crappy support, but not even a forum. It's ridiculous. I've sent three emails for support. The manual is cursory. The website sends you first to the "knowledgebase" which is just a re-write of the user guide. There are no real problems / resolutions in it. Full explanation of functions and interactions is not available. Give up on that and try and contact support. LOL! Good luck finding the email address or form. Ok, you found it. Select Ghost 9 from the pulldown....hmm strange, the resulting form doesn't have any related problem categories for Ghost. It only list OS compatibility, antivirus this, and other product topics - nothing related to Ghost. I always pick compatibility anyway, because the damn program isn't compatible with anything. Submit and get the standard autoresponder that they will get back in 4 or 5 days! LOL! System down - that's nice. Well, you can pay support. But I read from someone that tried that option that it sucks also. Perhaps they will eventually get back to you. I haven't gotten that far. They make it too difficult, and obviously don't want to free support Ghost 9 via email.

[no13]

Hey, can I throw in Roxio's GoBack 3 into the mix? I use it and i like it well enough. I can't say about Ghost thogh, they can't run at the same time. Ghost doesn't need CDs ... it takes over your MBR (so say byebye to autobooting into linux - you'll always need a boot disk). Any thoughts?
Of Course, Norton has bought it also, and I think it ships with certain versions of Norton System Works 2004, quite like Ghost.

[planetbill]

Ok, the rant continues. I was first posting the previous to see if it would work without a signup. It did so I will continue with my Ghost 9 expose:

Crazy errors!? I am using XP SP1 with SATA. I have 2 large internal satas and the backup drive is a larger USB external drive. Drive 1 has partitions C,D,E,F,G,H & Drive 2 is M external are N,O,P

1) It seems to backup well, I mean the logs look nice and say 'image successfully created', etc but then I look on the disk in the folder and there is nothing there. Well, that happened one time. Why? I don't know.

2) One night I ran a backup image of drive 1 and logged off XP - then I went to sleep. Next day I thought all would be cool, but Ghost was no longer running (even in the taskbar!). All partitions had been completely backed except the main system C was partial. For some reason it died. Does a User Logoff kill it? It shouldn't.

3) Another thing I tried was right clicking on the Ghost 9 task bar icon and choosing 'Back up Now' (note this command isn't in the User guide). I did this first on drive 1, and it seemed to work great. Next I did the same for the second drive 'M' and I thought it was working, but oddly it had backed up Drive 1 images (partitions) again. I thought it was a fluke. I rebooted, and made sure I selected Back Up Now 'Backup of M:' and it did the other drive again!

4) Ghost 9 requires the .Net Framework which sucks

5) Seems to take a lot longer to backup than Acronis - especially if you verify and ask for highest compression compared to the same for Acronis.

6) Within Ghost in the 'Drives' View my drive 'M' has a red X on it as though it has a problem; however there is nothing wrong with the drive (as far as I can tell). Drive 'M' is a Maxtor 120gb sata with no data on it and NTFS format. Once again - LOL

7) Biggest problem is even though I have created full backups (actually baseline backups) I am unable to restore all partitions to drive 1. I have successfully restored the main C system partition but not the others. I was able to boot on this and XP looked normal except the other partitions weren't there and icons related to other drives were greyed out. It is very confusing how to do this, which options and screens to do this with. I've tried a number of times and can't get it to work. I've looked in the user guide and all over the online site for faqs, etc. I have sent in support requests to Symantec, and so far no replies for help. Oh, BTW I am a database administator with 10 years experience, and also build my own pc's. If I have difficulty then there is a problem.

Other than the few bizarre things I get the impression the program would work. It has a lot of features, but I can't use it if I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong (assuming I am), and I can't get quick feedback from tech support.

Right now I am leaning back to Acronis TI 8. If I can purchase and get it to backup restore as a test in full then it will probably be worth it even without the support. I did a test with the trial and it seemed to work great; however the trial wouldn't let me test a full restore so I'm not positive yet.

[iain]

Dear all

thanks for the further comments.

like planetbill i have built PCs (including the present one), and similarly, just can't see what I'd be doing wrong.

i have a 120gb sata seagate drive in the computer which is meant to back up to a 160gb lacie (maxtor) usb2 external drive.

at one point i set up a new partition on the internal drive and installed *only* xp sp1 and ghost (plus the necessary .net update) and found that it worked maybe 4 times out of 5. on other setups it varies from working about one occasion in ten to 50% of the time. it's a total mystery as to why this should be - i have scrutinised the system to ensure that *nothing* different is running on each occasion, but still ghost behaves apparently in an entirely arbitrary way!

just to clarify the problem: it can almost always create the image successfully, but when it verifies the image (either as part of the job or when I verify it manually in the image browser later), it says the image is invalid. if it tries to verify it as part of the job, but is unsuccessful in this way, it deletes the image it's made - planetbill, this might explain the vanishing images you described.

however -- and here the plot thickens even more -- on every occasion, without fail, that it tells me the backup image is invalid, I am able to mount, browse and extract files from the offending image with NO problem at all. Now whether the image would be good for a system restore, I don't know, and I am reluctant to count on it!

planetbill, you are right about the symantec tech support - it's a fiasco. i strongly resent having to pay to talk to them.

no13, I'm not sure how useful GoBack is in the case of a total system failure. Presumably to be on the safe side it is good to have an image of the entire drive that you can access without windows, right?

Oh and one last rant about the incremental backups: it seems that if you get one bad incremental, you have to scrub all of them and re-do the baseline image. This is because it keeps increasing the number of the incremental file name - a missing incremental causes it to apparently "skip" one, which then confuses it. AGH!

What is SOOO frustrating is that in principle it is a GREAT idea to be able to back up like this within Windows. When it HAS worked, it's been swift. But of course, what is the use of a backup prog if you can't rely on it?

Final question: planetbill, do you have special SATA controller drivers..?

[no13]

Would you be willing to try Digital Dolly (download.com)?
They recommend it, and I believe it solves your purpose...plus its free...Do give it a look (41MB - SMALL, iso for 1 cd I believe)

[iain]

Digital Dolly could be good - I haven't heard of it before - but do you know if it is genuinely free from spyware, adware etc.?

Thanks.

[no13]

Download.com says its free, i've seen its an ISO image... but that's it. I dn have CD Writer, so I can't be sure of the details, but DO read user opinions on download.com, one or two may actually be users instead of developers promoting their own product or competitors badmouthing it.

[iain]

Alright, thank you for the suggestion. I will check it out later and report back here!

I have an iso burning tool which is free and fantastic so if I do download the program it should be quite straightforward.

[no13]

Similar discussion
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=49125

[planetbill]

-{ Quote: "
i have a 120gb sata seagate drive in the computer which is meant to back up to a 160gb lacie (maxtor) usb2 external drive.

Final question: planetbill, do you have special SATA controller drivers..?" }-

This is a very similar setup to what I am doing. I too have the 120gb Seagate Barracuda to an external maxtor USB2 drive.

Yes, I suppose they are special SATA drivers. At least I had to load them off of a floppy by hitting F6 during the XP install. However Ghost seems to see all the drives with no problem.

Bill

[iain]

How funny that we have the very same disks!

Yes, I've heard about people needing to install SATA or SCSI drivers during XP setup. What's very strange is that I didn't need to; and I've never had any other problems as a result. The "Intel 82801EB Ultra ATA Storage Controllers" which are automatically configured by Windows after the intel INF update work fine. But maybe I should be using some other controller?

The intel site -- needless to say! -- is nigh on useless, prattling on as it does about RAID accellorators etc., but making no mention of single SATA setups.

Any ideas?

[nwb]

I have had the same Ghost 9.0 experience as a previous post, which stated that every time a backup is created, the image is reported as being successful, followed immediately by a report stating the PQI file is invalid or unsupported. This occurs if you have the option checked to validate the backup image after creation. If you turn this option off, you do not receive the error.

Additionally, the user manual states that if you can view the individual files in the image browser then it is just as good as using the software validation. Therefore, since I could browse the image, I thought everything was fine.

This is NOT the case. When I lost my drive and had to do a restore, Ghost 9.0 validated the image file and proceeded to copy data. About 5% into the job, I recieved an error, "EA39070A Internal Structure of PQI File Invalid or Unsupported". This happens EVERY time.

As also previously mentioned, there is no "Knowledge Base" (probably because the product is new). I have submitted a ticket to Symantec Support services and am waiting for a reply...

[iain]

Hi nwb, and thanks for posting your experience.

Like you, I can browse (and extract files from) even the 'invalid' images... but of course this is no use when it comes to doing a system restore, as you unfortunately found.

It would be interesting to see if you have any of the same components in your PC as me. In particular are you using an Intel D865 motherboard? And are you using a SATA disk?

Do please let me know if you get any useful info back from Symantec!

Thanks
iain

[nwb]

Hello iain,

Interestingly, my hardware configuration is quite different. I have a MSI motherboard with a SIS chipset, and two Western Digital IDE hard drives.

I am also backing up to an external Seagate USB 2.0 hard drive, in addition to the internal drives.

I will certainly let you know what I hear from Symantec.

Best Regards

[Paranoid2000]

Anyone considering disk imaging software should also check out Drive Snapshot (http://www.drivesnapshot.de/en/). It's a small (140KB) application that can take backups in Windows without affecting other applications, should work with all RAID setups and can also be run in DOS to restore an image (i.e. you can use a boot floppy to do a restore - all you need are NTFS drivers if the image backup file is on an NTFS partition).

[Peter2150]

Among others I use Drive Snapshot. Very quick, and easy to use. Haven't done a restore, but the explorer options works great, and I can use the dos disk to verify the image. Also the author will respond to E-Mails within 24 hours.

Also have been trying Paragon's Exact Image. Imaging was painless, but can't access image from recovery disk. Emailed Techsupport SUnday and am still waiting.

[iain]

nwb - ok so it's not the motherboard! Interesting that you are backing up to USB 2.0 also. I had wondered whether it was a problem with the external drive or its connection to the PC, but experienced the same problems with Ghost when backing up from the internal hard drive to itself (or from one partition of it to another). I also tried varying the USB port setup in the BIOS (from full to hi speed, etc) but that made no difference.

Paranoid2000, thank you for the tip. However as I think I mentioned earlier in the thread I am reluctant to spend more on another backup product. I know this sounds a bit stubborn (especially with something as important as backups!) but I am thinking that 'sod's law' will mean I find a Ghost fix the very day after I've bought another product. :-S

[Paranoid2000]

Drive Snapshot can be downloaded on a trial basis (the download has time-limited backup and unlimited restore functionality) so you can test it out without purchasing. But if you feel you've spent enough for the time being then that's your call to make. :) Hope you do find a fix.

[still looking]

Can anyone tell me if there is a good basic easy to use (that actually works) image program (for a newbie) that can be used without disabling Symantec's Go-Back? I am not going to disable Go-back, it has just saved my backside too many times and there's no way I would be without it. So are there any good Image programs that will still work with Go-back left on? Thanks in advance.

[nod32_9]

The image software must "LOCK" the partition before it can capture the data. The same with image restoration. Since there are no identically configured PCs, you may encounter an image software that CANNOT function properly IN windows. That's why good vendors provide a $ back guaratee. Even if you can achieve a "LOCK", you run the risk of corrupting the image file if you continue to work with windows in a locked/semi-locked state!

The fool-proof method of drive imaging is to run the image program OUTSIDE of windows (DOS or Caldera DOS), when the image software can access/lock all data in the hard drive. It takes 30 seconds to reboot the PC. The image software will also be able to process data at a faster rate (600 to 800MB/min) since there is no OS overhead load.

Bootit ng is probably the most robust drive image software that would meet these requirements.

[Paranoid2000]

-{ Quote: "The image software must "LOCK" the partition before it can capture the data. The same with image restoration. Since there are no identically configured PCs, you may encounter an image software that CANNOT function properly IN windows. That's why good vendors provide a $ back guaratee. Even if you can achieve a "LOCK", you run the risk of corrupting the image file if you continue to work with windows in a locked/semi-locked state!" }-Not all imaging software has to do this. Drive Snapshot uses a driver hook in the Windows file access routine when doing a backup - when an application attempts to write to a file, Snapshot intercepts this and checks to see if the file has been backed up - if it has not, it backs it up before allowing the write to proceed. Anti-virus background scanners use a similar technique to scan every file before other programs can access them.-{ Quote: "The fool-proof method of drive imaging is to run the image program OUTSIDE of windows (DOS or Caldera DOS), when the image software can access/lock all data in the hard drive. It takes 30 seconds to reboot the PC. The image software will also be able to process data at a faster rate (600 to 800MB/min) since there is no OS overhead load." }-The problem with this approach is that the PC is effectively unusable while the image backup is being taken - and this is going to take a great deal longer than just 30 seconds. This is therefore unsuitable for systems that are constantly in use, and makes backing up more of a chore that it should be.

As for speed, in practice DOS is going to be far slower than Windows because it does not use DMA for high-speed disk access (relying on PIO instead, limiting maximum speed to about 8MB/sec). This can reduce the speed to a fraction of that possible on a properly setup Windows system. However a Linux based boot disk should be able to handle DMA - and there are some FreeDOS UDMA (http://linux.tu-varna.acad.bg/~lig/freedos/) drivers now available.

[iain]

Indeed, I used to use Ghost 2003 (which does its work in DOS), but the speed -- even with USB 2.0 -- was just excrutiatingly slow. It needs to stay in DOS to verify the image too, so in total the computer was unusable for about four hours. Given that my PC is in my bedroom I didn't want to sleep with it clattering away, so I kept having to go for four hour walks while it backed up!!

This was, ironically, the reason why I switched to Ghost 9.0 - because it claims to be able to back up in Windows. And on the rare occasions when it does mysteriously work, it's much faster.


With regards to "still looking"'s request for a program that can work alongside GoBack, it's true that Ghost 9.0 requires you to turn off GoBack, but I would suggest that if you can get Ghost 9.0 to work correctly, and you set it to make incremetal backups every hour (for instance), you may find it an acceptable alternative to GoBack. It is very easy to use (when it works!).

[Peter2150]

Hi Still looking.

I suspect the answer to your question may be no. Problem is that Goback modifies the MBR, and most imaging software prefers that that isn't done. I faced the same issue and finally resolved it by switching from GoBack to Raxco's First Defense-ISR. This program uses more diskspace the Goback, because it essentially takes a complete snapshot of your disk, so the snapshot uses the same space as you already use. HOWEVER, the two big advantages are 1) nothing you do can affect the snapshot. Unlock Goback which can loose history with lots of disk activity. 2). You can actually disable the preboot in FD-ISR take a disk image and then turn the preboot back on. No loss of history. Only potential drawback is image is bigger.

Finally to switch to the snapshot just takes a reboot. On my system where my disk content is about 7 gig, to make an initial snapshot takes about 30 minutes. After that a copy/refresh takes about 2 minutes.

Check it out www.raxco.com

[nod32_9]

Lock/hook...the principle is still the same. To achieve the highest possibility of image file stability during the restoration process, the image software must copy the data when it is not in use. If windows is NOT 100% static during the entire imaging process (and it won't be if you are working in windows), then a very small change in configuration can corrupt the restored image file. Remember that the image software cannot copy EVERYTHING at one time. A good software designer will force the user to boot out of windows if he/she attempts to image the primary active partition containing the OS.

I only said that rebooting will cost 30 seconds. I encourage those with a modern PC to compare the read/write speed of DriveImage 5 or Bootit ng (non-windows image software) to ANY windows-based image software. Note that NT machines do not use DOS. Four hours is about right if you're trying to image 100GB of data.

Okay, so you are willing to sacrifice data corruption and CPU overhead load just to save 30 seconds of reboot time? Not a problem. I prefer to automate this task late at night when the PC is not in use. Task scheduler...the ultimate in simplicity and automation. I suppose those who MUST USE the PC 24/7 can say that rebooting is a chore.

[nod32_9]

I take it that First Defense-ISR runs in windows. Based on your post, this program can process the initial data at a rate of 230MB/min. This is much slower than Drive Image 5 with Caldera DOS (Dell 4600, P4 2.4GHz, 1GB RAM, WXP Home). DI 5 creates data at a speed of 530MB/min (HIGH compression). Image restoration is north of 780MB/min (HIGH compression).

The image creation speed of my old 600MHz PIII (Drive Image 5, 384MB RAM, WXP Pro) is 260MB/min. This PC has a FSB speed of 133MHz.

[Paranoid2000]

-{ Quote: "Lock/hook...the principle is still the same. To achieve the highest possibility of image file stability during the restoration process, the image software must copy the data when it is not in use. If windows is NOT 100% static during the entire imaging process (and it won't be if you are working in windows), then a very small change in configuration can corrupt the restored image file." }-Sorry, but this is not the same at all. A hook changes the way the operating system behaves. As such, this method does not require the monopolisation of resources that a lock does. As long as applications use the "standard" Windows file-access mechanisms there is no risk of corruption (if you are using badly-behaved applications that write to the disk directly, then all bets are off - and not just for backups either).-{ Quote: "Remember that the image software cannot copy EVERYTHING at one time. A good software designer will force the user to boot out of windows if he/she attempts to image the primary active partition containing the OS." }-The problem with this approach is that it makes backups a more difficult task - and impossible for machines that cannot be taken offline for the time needed. Backups need to be done regularly and frequently, and a program that can make this process as painless as possible will serve most users better.-{ Quote: "
I only said that rebooting will cost 30 seconds. I encourage those with a modern PC to compare the read/write speed of DriveImage 5 or Bootit ng (non-windows image software) to ANY windows-based image software. Note that NT machines do not use DOS. Four hours is about right if you're trying to image 100GB of data." }-I can archive 30GB of data in 40 minutes with Drive Snapshot (at over 600MB/min on a 1GHz PIII laptop with a 5400rpm hard drive, most desktops should manage better). That means just over 2 hours for 100GB - and while being able to use the PC for other things (though data intensive work will slow down the backup).-{ Quote: "Okay, so you are willing to sacrifice data corruption and CPU overhead load just to save 30 seconds of reboot time?" }-Drive Snapshot includes an option to verify the backup afterwards and allows you to mount it as a virtual drive if you wish to check individual files/folders. I've tested restoring an active boot partition and (aside from running a chkdsk on startup) it worked perfectly.-{ Quote: "I prefer to automate this task late at night when the PC is not in use. Task scheduler...the ultimate in simplicity and automation. I suppose those who MUST USE the PC 24/7 can say that rebooting is a chore." }-There are those of us who have to stay online all the time... ;) *quickly checks and adjusts catheter and feeding tube*

[Don Pelotas]

Hi Paranoid2000

Being the curious person i am (and looking for backup software that actually work's), downloaded Drive Snapshot and after having done the first backup i am simply shocked. Just over one minute to backup 4.5 gb, i just couldn't believe it, so i used the virtualdrive option to check it and everything is there, quite amazing!

I have couple of question's if that's ok. :)

1. Is the restoring speed anything like the backup speed, or ???

2. Is a scenario this possible: Burn the image to dvd > erase the harddisk (using Killdisk) > use the "disaster recovery diskette" to boot and install the image from the dvd. ???

I guess what i am asking is if i have malware infection that my av/at can't clean/delete, is question nr.2 possible/necessary, or will "normal" restoring mode take care (erase) of the malware infection. ??? :)

Regards

[Peter2150]

Hi Nod32_9

Yes FD-ISR runs in windows, in fact it only runs in windows. I do it offline as I do shut down my virus scanner. One thing that slows an initial scan is you are reading and writing to the same drive. Data transfer rates are higher and my time estimates were an estimate. But after the first initial creation of the snapshot there is really no reason to do it again, unless you want to create another snapshot(you can have 10 if you have the diskspace). Additional copies to refresh the snapshot is only 1 to 3 minutes on average.

To give you an example, my system froze while I was cleaning my registry, and I had to do a cold reboot. Trashed the registry. System did reboot, but it was a mess. Recovery consisted of rebooting in the backup snapshot, a 2 minute copy, and a reboot back into primary snapshot. Much quicker than any solution.

BUT like GoBack this doesn't help you a bit for a total drive failure. For that you do need a disk imaging program.

Pete

[iain]

-{ Quote: "As long as applications use the "standard" Windows file-access mechanisms there is no risk of corruption (if you are using badly-behaved applications that write to the disk directly, then all bets are off - and not just for backups either)." }-

Yes, as I understand it, it's certainly possible to backup without corruption in Windows (otherwise many backup programs would just be plain lying!). But this comment makes me wonder whether I have been suffering from a 'badly-behaved app'.

Since I tried Ghost 9 on a machine with NO other apps, I wonder if one of my drivers could be the culprit. Now this is pushing the limits of my knowledge, but Paranoid2000: do you think this is at least theoretically possible? Can drivers be badly bahaved in the way you're describing?

-{ Quote: "The problem with this approach is that it makes backups a more difficult task - and impossible for machines that cannot be taken offline for the time needed. Backups need to be done regularly and frequently, and a program that can make this process as painless as possible will serve most users better." }-

This was exactly the choice I made; I'd rather make the backups more frequently in Windows than be forced to make them less often because I could only spare the DOS downtime once a week.

-{ Quote: "That means just over 2 hours for 100GB - and while being able to use the PC for other things (though data intensive work will slow down the backup)." }-

Just to note, the reason I was having to set aside four hours for the Ghost 2003 backups (well, maybe about 3.5hrs) was because it has to remain in DOS while it verifies the image. And indeed, I just have a lot of data!

[Paranoid2000]

-{ Quote: "...i am simply shocked. Just over one minute to backup 4.5 gb, i just couldn't believe it, so i used the virtualdrive option to check it and everything is there, quite amazing!" }-4.5GB in a minute?! I want that system! ;)-{ Quote: "1. Is the restoring speed anything like the backup speed, or ??? " }-If doing the restore in Windows, the speed should be similar. Via a DOS bootdisk, it is likely to be slower - though the UDMA drivers mentioned above may change matters considerably.-{ Quote: "2. Is a scenario this possible: Burn the image to dvd > erase the harddisk (using Killdisk) > use the "disaster recovery diskette" to boot and install the image from the dvd. ??? " }-It should be possible - the key issue here is whether your DVD drive is accessible after starting with a DOS bootdisk. I would advise trialling this (with a different hard disk obviously) since this sort of thing can be affected by your system configuration (not to mention the type of DVD drive used).-{ Quote: "I guess what i am asking is if i have malware infection that my av/at can't clean/delete, is question nr.2 possible/necessary, or will "normal" restoring mode take care (erase) of the malware infection. ??? :)" }-The problem in this scenario is at what point you found out about this infection - most (non-adware) malware tries to keep a low profile so if undiscovered long enough, it could have affected backups by the time you do find it. However if you are burning to DVD and keeping every backup made indefinitely, this should be less of a concern.-{ Quote: "Since I tried Ghost 9 on a machine with NO other apps, I wonder if one of my drivers could be the culprit. Now this is pushing the limits of my knowledge, but Paranoid2000: do you think this is at least theoretically possible? Can drivers be badly bahaved in the way you're describing?" }-I don't know enough about how Ghost functions to be able to comment authoritatively here - but if it has to run as a Windows service, it is quite likely to be using some other method of backing up data. It should however be worthwhile checking for updated drivers for your motherboard chipset - bugs here can cover a multitude of sins...-{ Quote: "Just to note, the reason I was having to set aside four hours for the Ghost 2003 backups (well, maybe about 3.5hrs) was because it has to remain in DOS while it verifies the image. And indeed, I just have a lot of data!" }-Verifying backups in Snapshot requires extra time also - but the verify is twice as fast as the backup so 100GB could come in at 3 hours (though some people seem to get much faster results...).

[nod32_9]

Let's use a concrete example to illustrate one of the problem behind imaging in windows. You start the image software at 9 am. The procedure takes two hours. During this period, you continue to work in windows by making changes to various programs like antivirus, firewall, JPEGs, office documents, windows, etc. No image software is capable of updating ALL these changes on-the-fly, from start to finish. Even if this is possible in the future, the program would constantly have to write/delete data in the image file, to stay current with the changes. This will take more time and CPU power.

I'm also interested in checking out the system that could image a 4.5GB chunk of data in one minute. That's 3x faster than non-windows imaging software (on a high end PC). The throughput speed should be higher during image restoration (no need to interpret and compress data).

The argument about not being able to take down windows to backup data is a valid one. However, this only applies to manufacturing equipments running 24/7. People do sleep/rest. Nothing is EASIER and more CONSISTENT than SCHEDULED TASK. Just setup the system to image your data when you sleep. Totally hands-off approach without slowing down your work!

Just remember that you will experience PC slowdown when you work in windows and run the image program at the same time. Some of the programs/tasks may not be accessible during this period. To me, this is an UNACCEPTABLE solution to data backup.

[Paranoid2000]

-{ Quote: "Let's use a concrete example to illustrate one of the problem behind imaging in windows. You start the image software at 9 am. The procedure takes two hours. During this period, you continue to work in windows by making changes to various programs like antivirus, firewall, JPEGs, office documents, windows, etc. No image software is capable of updating ALL these changes on-the-fly, from start to finish. Even if this is possible in the future, the program would constantly have to write/delete data in the image file, to stay current with the changes. This will take more time and CPU power." }-Imaging software does not need to keep up to date with the changes you subsequently make on a system - it just needs to create a consistent image based on your system at a specific point in time. That's the beauty of Drive Snapshot's approach - when you start it, it will intercept any attempted changes and backup the data if it has not already done so, giving you an image of the system at the time you started Snapshot.-{ Quote: "However, this only applies to manufacturing equipments running 24/7. People do sleep/rest. Nothing is EASIER and more CONSISTENT than SCHEDULED TASK. Just setup the system to image your data when you sleep. Totally hands-off approach without slowing down your work!" }-There are other reasons for needing a PC up all the time like background processing (Seti@Home, Distributed.net), serving data (either as an ad-hoc webserver or a P2P node) or providing services (e.g. a private IRC server).-{ Quote: "Just remember that you will experience PC slowdown when you work in windows and run the image program at the same time. Some of the programs/tasks may not be accessible during this period. To me, this is an UNACCEPTABLE solution to data backup." }-May I respectfully suggest you try Drive Snapshot first (a free trial is available with time-limited backup and unlimited restore capability) before making this judgement? It runs at low priority so does not interfere with other processes - unless they have the pathological need to overwrite your whole hard disk. Doing tasks on your system will slow down the backup, but should have little noticeable affect otherwise.

[iain]

-{ Quote: "I don't know enough about how Ghost functions to be able to comment authoritatively here - but if it has to run as a Windows service, it is quite likely to be using some other method of backing up data. It should however be worthwhile checking for updated drivers for your motherboard chipset - bugs here can cover a multitude of sins..." }-
Yes, it does run as a Windows Service rather than an executable, but I'm not entirely sure what that means. Interestingly the manual is at pains to point out that it is unconnected to the native Windows 'volume shadow copy' service. At any rate, when I have an opportunity I'll see if I can change (or roll back) the drivers for the chipset etc.

-{ Quote: "The procedure takes two hours. During this period, you continue to work in windows by making changes to various programs like antivirus, firewall, JPEGs, office documents, windows, etc. No image software is capable of updating ALL these changes on-the-fly, from start to finish. " }-
Isn't this precisely what Ghost (and other in-Windows image progs) does?

-{ Quote: "This will take more time and CPU power." }-
Additional incremental backups really do take just a few minutes once the baseline image is created. I gather that programs which make differential backups are even faster than Ghost. But NB that I'm not saying 'Ghost is so great, and you are wrong' - after all, it doesn't work properly for me! But when it does work, I found it to be very efficient.

-{ Quote: "The argument about not being able to take down windows to backup data is a valid one. However, this only applies to manufacturing equipments running 24/7. People do sleep/rest. Nothing is EASIER and more CONSISTENT than SCHEDULED TASK. Just setup the system to image your data when you sleep." }-
Woah, please, let's chill. I work all day on my PC, and unfortunately sleep just a few feet away from it. The sound of the fans and disk, together with the heat it gives out, keeps me awake. Trust me I've tried. Anyway, I shouldn't have to justify this... it's just my personal arrangement, so I need a backup prog that will suit my setup.

-{ Quote: "Just remember that you will experience PC slowdown when you work in windows and run the image program at the same time. Some of the programs/tasks may not be accessible during this period." }-
It's absolutely true that it does slow the machine down. But because my work is mainly word processing, the impact is negligable. I don't deny that it would cause more serious slowdowns if, for instance, you were designing 3-D graphics, etc. Nevertheless, Ghost 9 doesn't prevent the user accessing any programs, tasks etc.

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "4.5GB in a minute?! I want that system! ;)" }-Not anything special (Athlon XP 3200, 1gb ram), i think it's the harddisk-Western Digital Raptor s-ata (not raid), because i've noticed that my av scanning-times are faster than than similar setup's with a more "normal" 7200 rpm hd (a full scan with Kav only takes 10 minutes), or perhaps i have missed something, which is entirely possible. ;) ;D

EDIT: It turns out that i did miss something, at least i think so ;) my hd is 35,291 gb, freespace is 28,5 gb, the snapshot says 2267mb read and 1287mb written, yet if i check through virtualdrive then everything is there, i am confused. ???
-{ Quote: "it should be possible - the key issue here is whether your DVD drive is accessible after starting with a DOS bootdisk. I would advise trialling this (with a different hard disk obviously) since this sort of thing can be affected by your system configuration (not to mention the type of DVD drive used)." }-I will try this when my trial is running out then, if it works, well then Mr. Ehlert has found a new customer. :)

[Paranoid2000]

-{ Quote: "EDIT: It turns out that i did miss something, at least i think so ;) my hd is 35,291 gb, freespace is 28,5 gb, the snapshot says 2267mb read and 1287mb written, yet if i check through virtualdrive then everything is there, i am confused. ???" }-Snapshot compresses data as it images it - this won't do much for already compressed data (zip files, etc) but can make a useful impact on other data. If the 2267MB read was the final figure given, then it suggests you have mutliple partitions on your disk (each would need to be backed up separately).

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "Snapshot compresses data as it images it - this won't do much for already compressed data (zip files, etc) but can make a useful impact on other data." }-
Ah, i did look the website, but missed the part about compressing data. ;D

Thank you Paranoid2000, you have as usual been a big help. :)

Regards

[nod32_9]

A modern high-end HD has a maximum continuous throughput speed of about 3.6GB/min. The real-world transfer speed is closer to 2.7GB/min. Add the processing time of the imaging software and you can expect to see somewhere between 1.2 and 1.8GB/min on a high-end PC. It is possible to hit a speed of 2.4GB/min during image restoration.

I'm not a fan of incremental backup. If something goes wrong with your original baseline image file, then you could be in big trouble. I prefer to work smart by keeping the OS as small as possible. My C WXP partition is only 700MB. Critical data reside in partition D (currently 450MB). The rest go in partition E. I only back up partitions C and D. Total imaging time for both partitions is less than 4 minutes. My 47GB imaging partition can store up to 80 days worth of back-up data.

[nod32_9]

I've tested Snapshot vs. DI 5. Snapshot can image the 700MB partition in 2min 23sec (346MB). Drive Image's time is 2:35 (343MB). With DI 5, I have the ability to create and restore image files from any one of my three C primary partitions. Snapshot can only create image file from the primary ACTIVE C partition. The other two inactive primary C partitions are not visible for selection. Furthermore, when restoring the image file of the the primary active C partition BACK to the primary active C partition, Snapshot said that it cannot run because the volume is in use. The other option is to dismount the volume. An attempt was made to dismount the volume but Snapshot generated an "error unmounting volume-fault windows error:5-access denied".

I suspect an attempt to reload the Snapshot image file outside of windows will work. But then we are back running the imaging software OUTSIDE of windows!

Snapshot is not a bad program. But it is not as powerful as a pure non-windows imaging software.

[nod32_9]

Two other points about Snapshot.

1.My CPU load remains at 100% when Snapshot is creating the image file. I can still open files, but any attempt to run a CPU intensive application such as DVD ripping or DVD playback it not acceptable.

2.To restore Snapshot data to an active primary partition containing Windows, the user must use a DOS boot disk! I don't need to insert a DOS boot disk with Drive Image 5 and Bootit ng when restoring image files.

[nwb]

-{ Quote: "Hi nwb, and thanks for posting your experience.

Like you, I can browse (and extract files from) even the 'invalid' images... but of course this is no use when it comes to doing a system restore, as you unfortunately found.

It would be interesting to see if you have any of the same components in your PC as me. In particular are you using an Intel D865 motherboard? And are you using a SATA disk?

Do please let me know if you get any useful info back from Symantec!

Thanks
iain" }-

Here is what Symantec said, even though their manual states the image file is not corrupt if you can browse it:
"Welcome to Symantec Online Technical Support.

I understand from your message that you have concerns with Norton Ghost.

Please note that we are experiencing higher than normal message volumes. We apologize for any inconvenience this issue may have caused you and thank you for your patience.

This error is reported if the image file is damaged or corrupted. Damage can occur when creating an image over a network if there is significant packet loss during the image creation process. Symantec recommends that you verify images after they are created to ensure their integrity.

As a workaround, create a new image file in a different location, or create a new image file with a different file name in the same location.

At times, the image file may be fine, but there may be a conflict with spyware detection software (such as Pest Control or Spybot), which may be either causing the image file to appear to be corrupted or causing the corruption.

While using Norton Ghost,disable spyware detection software.

This error can also occur if you copy an image file from one FireWire drive to another FireWire drive that is connected to a FireWire expansion card that uses a Via chipset (such as the Kouwell card).

To work around this issue, replace your Via-based FireWire expansion card with a card that uses a non-Via chipset (such as the Adaptec 4300 Fireconnect, which uses a TI chipset).

If these fixes do not correct the problem, run diagnostic tests or switch out your system RAM.

Please let us know if the issue is resolved or if we can be of further assistance.

Regards,

Symantec Authorized Technical Support"

[iain]

OMG is this the advice they asked you to *pay* for?! This is a transcription of part of the manual. I distinctly remember reading the suggestion that you 'swap out your system RAM' and thinking to myself 'not on your nelly, mate!'. Oh dear. But thank you for posting it. Have any of their suggestions been helpful to you?

-{ Quote: "...even though their manual states the image file is not corrupt if you can browse it" }-
I believe I tried restoring an image that was reported as corrupt but was nonetheless browsable (and from which files could be extracted) and it didn't work. :o(

[Paranoid2000]

-{ Quote: "I've tested Snapshot vs. DI 5. Snapshot can image the 700MB partition in 2min 23sec (346MB). Drive Image's time is 2:35 (343MB). With DI 5, I have the ability to create and restore image files from any one of my three C primary partitions. Snapshot can only create image file from the primary ACTIVE C partition. The other two inactive primary C partitions are not visible for selection." }-An interesting point - thanks for posting your findings here.-{ Quote: "Furthermore, when restoring the image file of the the primary active C partition BACK to the primary active C partition, Snapshot said that it cannot run because the volume is in use." }-If you know of anything that can restore to an active Windows boot partition while using it, I'd like to hear about it. :) You need to either start a separate copy of Windows or use a bootdisk/CD/DVD.-{ Quote: "I suspect an attempt to reload the Snapshot image file outside of windows will work. But then we are back running the imaging software OUTSIDE of windows!" }-Sorry - but you are talking about restoring images now. My previous posts were about backing up images - this is going to be the more common task for most and it is being able to do this without having to shut down your system which is the main benefit of programs like Snapshot.-{ Quote: "Snapshot is not a bad program. But it is not as powerful as a pure non-windows imaging software." }-As powerful? Arguably not. But more convenient? Yes. ;)-{ Quote: "1.My CPU load remains at 100% when Snapshot is creating the image file. I can still open files, but any attempt to run a CPU intensive application such as DVD ripping or DVD playback it not acceptable." }-Since Snapshot compresses the data, CPU utilisation does appear to vary according to the data itself. I find I can run "standard" tasks in the foreground with little slowdown but time-critical stuff could well be a no-no.-{ Quote: "2.To restore Snapshot data to an active primary partition containing Windows, the user must use a DOS boot disk! I don't need to insert a DOS boot disk with Drive Image 5 and Bootit ng when restoring image files." }-You can restore from Windows also as mentioned above - just use another copy (I keep a vanilla Win2K setup for this). Are you saying that Drive Image and BootIt can restore/overwrite the active boot partition from within Windows while it is in use?

[nod32_9]

DI 5 and Bootit ng do not run in Windows.

So the big hype is the ability to image the partition without having to wait 30 seconds to reboot? Snapshot is faster only if the image verification option is unchecked. It cannot image/restore a hidden primary partition. It requires a boot disc when restoring an active primary partition. DI5 and Bootit ng do not have these limitations. I believe most people would prefer the REBOOT key over a boot disc! There is no need to maintain "a vanilla Win2K setup" with DI5 and Bootit ng.

Most people don't have the know-how to configure "a vanilla Win2K setup". But they can hit the reboot key. A simple reboot will permit the user to create AND restore the image file. That's the beauty of non-windows imaging software. It's simple, robust, and powerful.

Another selling point of Snapshot is the ability to work in windows while the software creates the image file. Again, my test shows that the user can only do light PC work during this time. Honestly, how may PC users must keep their PCs ON 365 days/year? Even NT machines benefit from a reboot.

[iain]

I don't have experience of DI5 and Boot It so won't comment on those issues, but...
-{ Quote: "Honestly, how may PC users must keep their PCs ON 365 days/year? Even NT machines benefit from a reboot." }-
With respect, I would reiterate my earlier point about the need to find a backup solution that is convenient to my particular setup and work pattern.

It's not that you're 'wrong' about this, and that I'm 'right', but that the variability of users and systems means there *is no* absolutely right or wrong way to back up.

It's true that most people don't keep their PCs on 24/7, but that indicates nothing about whether a DOS backup solution would actually be appropriate in any given situation.

[nod32_9]

Personal preference can be a HUGE factor in determining which software is right for you. I can only provide scientific data about the PROS and CONS of various imaging software.

BTW, NT machines cannot process DOS. DI5 and Bootit ng support DOS, but they also work outside the DOS environment (W2K, WXP). Bootit ng, for example, relies on your BIOS and MBR for many of its functions.

[Paranoid2000]

-{ Quote: "So the big hype is the ability to image the partition without having to wait 30 seconds to reboot?" }-No - the "big hype" is being able to take a backup while doing work on your system as opposed to having to leave your PC for x hours to take an image using DOS-based software.-{ Quote: "It cannot image/restore a hidden primary partition." }-Important if you use hidden partitions - but most people don't.-{ Quote: "It requires a boot disc when restoring an active primary partition." }-A boot disk is one method but as I have explained, a separate Windows install is another. Of course, partitions other than the active boot one can be restored within Windows quite easily.-{ Quote: "DI5 and Bootit ng do not have these limitations. I believe most people would prefer the REBOOT key over a boot disc! There is no need to maintain "a vanilla Win2K setup" with DI5 and Bootit ng." }-I'm not going to ask you to explain how doing a reboot with DI5 is any more or less convenient than doing a reboot with a bootdisk - the point of my previous posts is that Drive Snapshot is more convenient for taking backups. If you cannot (or will not) understand this then there is no point in continuing this discussion.-{ Quote: "Another selling point of Snapshot is the ability to work in windows while the software creates the image file. Again, my test shows that the user can only do light PC work during this time. Honestly, how may PC users must keep their PCs ON 365 days/year? Even NT machines benefit from a reboot." }-Well I've just done a backup with Snapshot while checking email, browsing web pages, running 2 Java applets, a firewall, Proxomitron and editing some HTML help pages - with no perceptible effects other than the cooling fans spinning a bit faster. That is more than light work in my view and this is on a (by today's standard) modest 1GHz PIII system.

If BootItNG/DI 5 is better for your situation then fine - however DOS-based backup has disadvantages than can be more significant for others.

[nod32_9]

Here are the facts. I don't have FULL use of my PC when Snapshot is running in the background. The CPU load is at 100%! The HD is working at full capacity. Try DVD playback and tell me that you don't see this as a problem. I refuse work on a crippled PC, even for 3 seconds. I believe more people would prefer hitting the IMAGE icon at the end of the day to backup their data.

For those who are not searching for "ETs" 24/7, then just use the TASK SCHEDULER for 100% hands-off approach to data backup. You can run the program during dinner time. This shouldn't interfere with your beauty sleep.

With Snapshot, I must USE a boot disc if I want to restore an active primary partition. This applies to most mainstream PCs with ONE active primary C partition. Unlike Bootit ng, Snapshot does NOT come with a partition software. So we are talking about spending more $ to create additional extended logical partition(s) to make Snapshot as user-friendly as DI 5 or Bootit ng.

There is no need to use "a separate Windows install" with DI 5 or Bootit ng. Reboot the PC and you can image/restore ANY partition on your hard drive. You don't need to keep a copy of the boot disc. You can still restore data even if your floppy and/or optical drive(s) are DEAD. How's that for flexibility and convenience?

If you want to backup data, but CANNOT take windows off-line, then Snapshot will fit the bill. Just be aware of the limitations of windows-based imaging software.

[Peter2150]

To keep all this in perspective.....

The worst backup solution that is a hugh pain in the butt, that takes time to run, that keeps you from using your computer for maybe 30 minutes to an hour(my worst case with Ghost 2003) is still 100% better than have a drive fail, with NO backup.

[nod32_9]

That's why I put WXP in the C partition (700MB), important data in the D partition (450MB), and EVERYTHING else in the E partition. Imaging the C and D partitions takes less than 4 minutes. The stuffs in the E partition can be reloaded, so I don't waste time backing up E.

[Peter2150]

Kinda depends on your computer usage. I considered that approach, but I use my computer for 2 businesses and if something should happen to the disk drive, I realized even having data backed up wasn't good enough. That reloading time to get the computer back to the point it is right now, was simply longer than I can afford, hence complete disk image and backups.

Just depends on your needs.

[nod32_9]

Sounds like you need to do a nightly backup to a large slave HD.

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "Sounds like you need to do a nightly backup to a large slave HD." }-

I run the following:

To an external Harddrive

Ghost 2003 Image Once a month
Drive Snapshot Image once a week.
Dantz Retrospect 6.5 Backup on the whole drive nightly
Dantz Retrospect 6.5 Backup on My Documents both midday and nightly.

and finally, I do keep a current Rollback Snapshot via Raxco's First Defense.

[JimmyPage]

Could someone tell me if Raxco's First Defense is capable of reverting your hard drive like Symantec's Goback?

Right now I can go back 13 days with Goback (could be more) and on average about 10-12 different times for each day (sometimes more, it also depends how many times you restart your computer in each day).

Does Raxco's FD have the same ability to revert your hard drive as far back as Goback (at least 12 days) and is it capable of having as many possible times, in each day, that you could revert to (at least 10)? Thanks for any replies.

[nod32_9]

You can go back as far as you want IF you allocated sufficient hard drive space for the program. It costs hard drive space with each restore point. If you have a stable PC platform and you are an experienced computer user, then a daily backup is more than adequate.

GoBack does not backup everything in the hard drive. Therefore, GoBack does not provide your system with 100% restoration capability. Plus it runs in the background, which reduces the performance of your PC. You need an imaging program to protect the operating system and all the data in your hard drive.

[Peter2150]

GoBack does indeed protect the whole system. When you revert with Goback your whole disk is just like it was at the time you revert to. Big advantage to Goback is you can have multiple versions of work files and it is easy to retrieve any version. Big disadvantage is a sudden burst of huge activity can essentially disable goback.

FDISR on the other hand takes a permenant snapshot of your disk when ever you like and keeps it until you either delete it or refresh it. You can keep up to 10 shapshots. Draw back is each snapshot is the size of the original drive.

Neat thing about both is you can install a new program and if you don't like it you don't need to uninstall. You just revert and make the new program go away. With goback you only have limited time before you can't goback prior to the installation. With FDISR you can install a test program in another snapshot and play with it as long as you like

I used Goback for 4 years, and recently switched to FDISR. I wouldn't go back.

Another big factor is technical support. Symantec is at best mediocre. Raxco is absolutely 1st class.

[nod32_9]

You can believe whatever you want, but if the backup data resides in the same partition as the OS, then you DO NOT have a FULL backup of the OS! There will be a time when you cannot fix the problem, and you will seek out an imaging software.

[ghoster]

The revert data that Goback uses resides in a secret partition on the hard drive and cannot be accessed by anything but Goback as far as I know.

Goback can defeat almost any virus, trojan, spyware, keyloggers or any malware that is otherwise impossible to remove by reverting the hard drive back to the exact state it was in previous to the infection.

It is somewhat like Windows system restore but it reverts the entire hard drive right back to where it once was, really it is like a time machine for your computer removing nearly all problems you may encounter by restoring your computer back to its previous state before the problem. Of course if you didn't notice the malware in time and you run out of Goback revert times your up the creek, as they say.

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "You can believe whatever you want, but if the backup data resides in the same partition as the OS, then you DO NOT have a FULL backup of the OS! There will be a time when you cannot fix the problem, and you will seek out an imaging software." }-

Not sure what your point is. Goback protects the whole system as a rollback solution. It is a given that neither Goback or FD-ISR protect you from a disk failure.

Both Goback and FD-ISR can protect you from a mucked up system. For example. I only have one partition on my drive. Other night I was running my registry cleaner and during the cleaning part the system hung. Had to do a cold reboot. Computer rebooted but it was really ugly. Nothing really worked. Rebooted into my rollback snapshot (FD-ISR) did a 3 minute copy to my main snapshot, rebooted and was good to go. Have done similar things in the past with GoBack

[nod32_9]

http://pages.prodigy.net/jdjd/backup/software.htm

"I wouldn't rely solely on a system restore program to bring back your computer to perfect condition. These programs are not a substitute for thorough and reliable backups; rather, they are supplements to them".

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "http://pages.prodigy.net/jdjd/backup/software.htm

"I wouldn't rely solely on a system restore program to bring back your computer to perfect condition. These programs are not a substitute for thorough and reliable backups; rather, they are supplements to them"." }-

I've never had to do a restore from either Retrospect, Drive Snapshot or Ghost 2003. On the other hand GoBack and/or FD-ISR have never failed me. They have bailed me out of stuff that other people have needed to restore complete images to fix.

[ghoster]

Nod32_9

I agree Goback is not the best possible solution for backing up your data/hard drive, but it is about the easiest way I have ever found to fix nearly any problems outside of complete hard drive failure.

You should probably back up to dvd or some other external device for the best protection possible. Even another internal hard drive would not be the best way to store your back ups.

Programs like Goback are just so easy to use even a complete novice should be able to handle them without any problems. In just a couple minutes, much faster than any Image programs like Ghost, True Image, ect..., all problems will be gone just like that.

[nexstar]

-{ Quote: "
Two other points about Snapshot.

1.My CPU load remains at 100% when Snapshot is creating the image file. I can still open files, but any attempt to run a CPU intensive application such as DVD ripping or DVD playback it not acceptable.
" }-

I can't say about DVD ripping (wouldn't dream of it ::) ) but I can say that I am able to watch a DVD without problems while Snapshot is imaging the drive.

-{ Quote: "
2.To restore Snapshot data to an active primary partition containing Windows, the user must use a DOS boot disk! I don't need to insert a DOS boot disk with Drive Image 5 and Bootit ng when restoring image files.
" }-

I've never used DI5 or Bootit but I presume if your drive becomes unbootable then you must have to use a boot disk of some sort? It is quite easy with Snapshot to create a CD or DVD boot disk which can automatically restore the system from a previous image.

Most of these applications have strengths and weaknesses and everyone has different requirements. One of the features of Snapshot that I really like is that it doesn't have to be installed and it is only 131KB (sorry, that's 2 features :) ) which means that I can just keep it on my pen drive for when it is needed.

[nod32_9]

The inability to boot into windows represents a bigger problem for windows-based software. Bootit CAN reside in a separate partition (no data written to the OS). It is 100% independent from windows so it doesn't care if you cannot boot into windows! No need for pen drive. The program is only 450K but it can also act as a boot manager and partitioning software.

My test setup is a 600MHz with Snapshot and Power DVD running at the same time.

[Paranoid2000]

If a drive is unbootable due to a disk failure then BootIt being in a separate partition makes no difference - a boot disk or a partition on another hard drive is needed to do a restore. BootIt and Snapshot are in exactly the same boat in such a situation.

[nod32_9]

That is a valid point. However, almost all boot issues are related to the MBR and/or the boot partition. Today's HDs use the SMART monitoring system, designed to warn the user of impending HD failure.

If the HD is 100% dead, then no boot disc from any drive imaging vendor is going to save your butt. It's time to call the HD recovery specialist if you want to retrieve critical data from the HD.

[Paranoid2000]

-{ Quote: "However, almost all boot issues are related to the MBR and/or the boot partition. Today's HDs use the SMART monitoring system, designed to warn the user of impending HD failure." }-Hmm...I've never encountered an MBR/boot partition issue but have had 3 hard drive failures over the last 3 years (2 IBM TravelStars which seem to parallel the fabled DeathStar (http://www.sysopt.com/userreviews/harddrive/reviewhtml/IBM_75GXP.html) in reliability :( and one Toshiba). MBR/Boot partition issues seem more likely to be due to software (inadvertant use of Windows FIXMBR or FDISK), but shoudn't a messed up MBR prevent access to all partitions also?

As for SMART, it is only of use with a SMART-enabled BIOS or SMART-monitoring software - and even then it seems to only cover gradual disk degradation, not catastrophic (and sudden) failures.

[nexstar]

-{ Quote: "
The inability to boot into windows represents a bigger problem for windows-based software. Bootit CAN reside in a separate partition (no data written to the OS). It is 100% independent from windows so it doesn't care if you cannot boot into windows! No need for pen drive. The program is only 450K but it can also act as a boot manager and partitioning software.
" }-
I think my post referred to the drive being unbootable rather than Windows. I had a miserable experience recently when my carefully thought out disaster recovery strategy took me from smug mode to pathetic wailing fool mode within a 5 minute period.

GoBack 4 somehow managed to overwrite my two backup partitions on a separate hard disk (which it wasn't even monitoring) with its own single partition called "Roxio Goback". It also refused to boot the system disk which it was set up to "Autoback" on reset. The only way out was to do a fixmbr on the system disk which then wouldn't boot into XP. The TrueImage backups on the second drive were gone for good but I still had the copies I had made to external USB drive.

I was still in smug mode at this point.

When I tried to restore the images, TI8 reported them as corrupt. I can only be 95% certain that I verified the images after copying them to the external disk.

I had now entered pathetic wailing fool mode.

So, I ended up rebuilding the system from scratch. I did speak with Symantec UK's support but one of the error reports I was encountering they had never come across.

I have had just a few too many corrupt images with TI8, which is why I am giving Drive Snapshot a go now and I like it enough to have bought it.

GoBack has been re-installed again as I do still like the ability to turn back the clock on my PC. Even a few hours can be a life-saver. However, it is being treated with a certain amount of wariness after this incident!

I'm now also 100% certain that all of my backups are verified!

-{ Quote: "
My test setup is a 600MHz with Snapshot and Power DVD running at the same time.
" }-
I am using a Athlon 3200+ so our experiences in this will no doubt differ as a result.

[nod32_9]

Bootit ng generates a modified version of the MBR (EMBR). That's why it can manage more than 4 primary partitions. The user needs to enter the Bootit ng screen to modify this file. Most boot problems occur because the user accidentally changed something in windows.

Failure to boot is a very common problem with W9.x, and is usually related to data corruption in the boot partition. W2K and WXP are prone to corruption of the ntldr boot file.

I used to work in a company with over 200K employees. Most HDs last longer than the average useful life of a PC (4 years). Sudden HD failure is very rare in a desktop environment. HD mfrs used to provide a 3 yrs warranty on their products because most HDs don't fail within this period of time.

I doubt that go back can modify a good image file. You've probably imaged a bad partition containing go back. Garbage in, garbage out. If you had a good image file of a primary boot partition, then all you have to do is to completely wipe the data in the bad HD and restore the good image file from another HD. Why reload Go Back when you know that it may cause the same problem again?

I've encounted similar image corruption issue with TI 7 server. That's why I don't use TI.

[rodrigt]

-{ Quote: "BUT - having said all this - I have had MAJOR PROBLEMS running Ghost 9 and am at my wits' end! It is unreliable to the point of uselessness. 9 times out of 10 it willl image 'successfully' but then report that 'the internal structure of the PQI file (ie. the backup image) is invalid or unsupported'. This happened on a brand new install of Windows XP on a SATA hard disk that had been scrubbed clean. Ghost was the ONLY program installed.
_____________

Re: The "PQI" error, somewhere else on this forum someone cautioned that while it could be (seemingly) avoided by doing the backup without verification, it could show up later on attempted recovery... i.e. only to find out one did not have a backup after all. The Symantec website talks about Error EA39070A, but I found their solutions useless (i.e. it does not cover getting the error message while attempting to create the backup image, let alone how to preclude it.)

At this point I'm setting up a new PC and trying Ghost 9.0 for the first time. My first test doing a base backup WITHOUT encription for incremental backing up (onto drive D, WITH verification) has allowed me to check that my data is REALLY there. Double ckicking on the image file opens up a Ghost viewer that works just like Windows Explorer.

Comments/suggestions anyone?

rodrigt

[crockett]

-{ Quote: "
I've been a user of Drive Image 2002 from Powerquest and love it. Ghost 9 is just the next version (they purchased Powerquest for the DI technology which offers imaging with much greater simplicity than the old Ghost)." }-

Hi Luv' :) Hope you're doing fine...

Just purchased a new pc coming with WXP as default system. I used to use DriveImage 2002 on W98SE, booting from floppy disks to create or restore saved partitions.

Never could get my new pc to boot from these floppies (despite tweaking the computer bios to do so)...

I can boot from the DriveImage 2002 cdrom, but just can't go any step further once it is launched.

So if my active system is still good enough to perform, I just launch DI from the active XP session, which then goes into dos mode to perform the restore ops. But if my system is flawed, I simply cannot use floppies or bootable cds to get the job done.

Should I buy another version of this product so I could easily use a rescue DI cd? Don't know what to do... :(

Thanks for counsel if you have any...

Rgds, Crockett 8)

[nexstar]

-{ Quote: "
I doubt that go back can modify a good image file. You've probably imaged a bad partition containing go back. Garbage in, garbage out. If you had a good image file of a primary boot partition, then all you have to do is to completely wipe the data in the bad HD and restore the good image file from another HD. Why reload Go Back when you know that it may cause the same problem again?

I've encounted similar image corruption issue with TI 7 server. That's why I don't use TI." }-

I don't blame GoBack for the corrupt image file. That was on an external drive and may have been corrupted when it was copied to the drive.

I did have a good (verified) image of the primary partition which was on a second drive. Unfortunately, it was that drive that was trashed by GoBack.

Why give GoBack another chance? Yes, I asked myself that one as well! I suppose it's because I'm hoping that this was a complete fluke as I've not found anyone reporting a similar problem. That, and the fact that I've only recently paid for it and I'm too mean to give up on it just yet! Having said that, I do seem to have accumulated a stock of paid-for-but-redundant software.

[iain]

-{ Quote: "Re: The "PQI" error, somewhere else on this forum someone cautioned that while it could be (seemingly) avoided by doing the backup without verification, it could show up later on attempted recovery... i.e. only to find out one did not have a backup after all. The Symantec website talks about Error EA39070A, but I found their solutions useless (i.e. it does not cover getting the error message while attempting to create the backup image, let alone how to preclude it.)" }-
Yes, their "solutions" are less than helpful -- such as the one to "swap out your system RAM" (as reported above). *Detecting* error can indeed be avoided by not verifying the image, but that just means that the image is corrupt and you don't know it!
-{ Quote: "At this point I'm setting up a new PC and trying Ghost 9.0 for the first time. My first test doing a base backup WITHOUT encription for incremental backing up (onto drive D, WITH verification) has allowed me to check that my data is REALLY there. Double ckicking on the image file opens up a Ghost viewer that works just like Windows Explorer." }-
Please let us know how you get on. But beware the 'Ghost viewer' - it lets you browse and extract files from even 'pqi corrupt' image files. This is, of course, fine if you are in Windows, but that same corrupt file won't (I think) be restorable from the Ghost boot disk in the event of a system failure.

I'm still no closer to fixing the strange inconsistencies of my Ghost setup - since my last post I have tried 'disabling smart sector copying' and 'copying bad blocks' as well as trying a couple of different settings in the BIOS, but in each case, it remains maddeningly unpredictable: it will make a perfect image one minute, then make a corrupt image the next. And I'm not even trying to image from or to the system partition!

Any further ideas would be appreciated...

[no13]

I use GoBack... Anyone know of a similar replacement?

[nod32_9]

If Ghost 9 supports imaging from outside of windows, then you can use the Ghost boot disc to create the image file. Also use the Ghost boot disc to restore the image file. If your problem goes away, then there may be a problem with Ghost running in windows. I believe the inconsistency issue may be related to the inability of Ghost to achieve a good lock on some files under certain conditions.

The path of least resistance is to try another imaging software. There are no perfect software. That's why you need to find a program that will run well on YOUR SYSTEM. I avoid all SYMANTEC products due to the crappy customer support. This is an acquisition company. They acquire a product, repackage it, and sell it back under the SYMANTEC name. Always test out the software on your system before you open up your wallet.

There aren't many "flukes" in the PC business. Software run on codes. If the appropriate pre-conditions are met, then the problem will resurface. I don't do 1/2-ass job. That's the main reason why I don't use Go Back or equivalent to backup my data.

[Devinco]

-{ Quote: "I use GoBack... Anyone know of a similar replacement?" }-
Raxco First Defense ISR would make a good replacement for Goback.

[JimmyPage]

I just have three more questions if anyone can answer them.


1. Has anyone who uses Drive Snapshot (and has GoBack installed) ever made a successful image of your hard drive without disabling Goback?

2. Did you successfully restore the Drive Snapshot image without disabling GoBack?

3. Is it possible to run GoBack and First Defense together on a single hard drive?


Thanks.

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "I just have three more questions if anyone can answer them.


1. Has anyone who uses Drive Snapshot (and has GoBack installed) ever made a successful image of your hard drive without disabling Goback?

2. Did you successfully restore the Drive Snapshot image without disabling GoBack?

3. Is it possible to run GoBack and First Defense together on a single hard drive?


Thanks." }-

I've done a lot of looking at this. For sure the answer to the last question is no. They both modify the MBR for preboot options.

As to the first two questions, I think you will find if you do a disk image with Goback on that it will shut itself off do to massive disk activity, and thus you lose you history anyway. That is the advantage to First Defense, you can disable preboot and not lose your history. In fact you can even uninstall First Defense and still keep your history.

I always disable First Defense's Preboot prior to imaging. That way the MBR is clean.

Pete

[JimmyPage]

Thanks for the help Pete. Sounds like First Defense is a more useful program than GoBack. I may just switch from Goback to First Defense myself.

[Peter2150]

What made up my mind was when a friend of mine installed one of the potentially troublesome ZA updates, and then went to a meeting. Her hubby processed some huge graphic images, and they later discovered the image processing had done the massive disk activity to Goback. Had it been need to reverse the ZA installation, it would have been too bad soo sad.

With First Defense that can't happen. Your history although not a moving window is there until you do something to change it.

Oh one other big plus. Should you need it try Symantec's support. Good luck. On the other hand Raxco is absolutely first class.

[Loul]

Hello guys !
Very interesting thread, congratulation :)

I'm myself looking for a drive/partition backup utility.
I read about Ghost 9 and True Image 8 troubles (even with the latest updates ?). A major turn-off is also that those two programms launch processes that can't be simply turned down even when you don't use it.

I'm actually looking for a proggie that would :
- reliable (no bug, no image perfect till you use it)
- backup a big (approx 30 GBs) system partition onto DVD-r(w)s without having to store the whole back-up on a drive before burning the file (alternatively a proggie that let you store images on a NTFS drive)
- possibility to restore the system with the burnt DVD-rs without having to boot from hard-drives
- no permanent proggie running in background
- possibility to "explore" the files on the burnt DVD-rs to restore individual files on demand

It's ok to me if the proggie has to reboot or wouldn't even work directly from XP (though it would be better of course).

I'm not sure any of the programm discussed in this thread can do all those things, am I correct ? :'(

[nexstar]

-{ Quote: "
I just have three more questions if anyone can answer them.

1. Has anyone who uses Drive Snapshot (and has GoBack installed) ever made a successful image of your hard drive without disabling Goback?" }-
Yes, I do this all the time but I do the backup to a drive which is not being monitored by GoBack and so has no impact on the GoBack history file.

-{ Quote: "
2. Did you successfully restore the Drive Snapshot image without disabling GoBack?" }-

In the interests of science :) I have just restored a Drive Snapshot image of my system partition. As GoBack modifies the MBR, you have to restore the MBR first. Drive Snapshot includes the ability to do this. Once you restore the image then you lose your GoBack history. I guess this would be the case if you restored any partition monitored by GoBack.

At this point GoBack is disabled so you just need to enable it again to carry on monitoring.

Before I did this restore, I made a Snapshot image of the drive as it was then and then I also used GoBack to turn the drive back to near the start of its history (almost 3 weeks ago) and created another Snapshot image from that time...just in case!
-{ Quote: "
3. Is it possible to run GoBack and First Defense together on a single hard drive?" }-

No. I also own a copy of First Defense (I seem to collect these things) but I found it has different limitations to GoBack. To maintain as much GoBack history as possible, you have to set your system up carefully.

This is very off-topic for this thread. If you want to be bored senseless with my experiences of First Defense and GoBack then I'd be happy to oblige in a new thread :)

[Peter2150]

I for one would be curious about your experiences with Goback vs First Defense. Might be a good thread.

Pete

[nod32_9]

Loul

Bootit ng should meet these requirements.

[iain]

-{ Quote: "This is very off-topic for this thread." }-
lol... but I am glad that more people are reading it, because maybe someone who understands the mechanics of in-Windows 'hot' backups will be able to identify my mysterious problem with Ghost 9! <grin>

As nod says:
-{ Quote: "I believe the inconsistency issue may be related to the inability of Ghost to achieve a good lock on some files under certain conditions." }- ...but does anybody know more about how the 'locking' or 'shadowing' actually happens? And what 'conditions' could these be, when they seem to be wholly arbitrary (occuring even on a fresh XP install with no other programs at all!)?

Clearly the conditions must ultimately have a predictable cause -- the PC is, after all, just a machine -- but I am wondering if anybody here has relevant experience of diagnosing such *seemingly* unpredictable problems?

For instance, is there a comprehensive real-time system monitoring prog (ideally a free one!) that would let me keep a close eye on what's happening while Ghost makes its backup? (Not something that just takes a snapshot.)

Thanks all for your advice so far.

[no13]

Nexstar...
please do start the new thread... I wanna replace GoBack (It came in NSW2004 with some stupid piece of hardwareas a bundle... so it's free for me and I'd like a free replacement if possible)

[no13]

HEYYYY.....
FDISR doesn't support my FAT32 "data" drives... i can have my C: (NTFS) backed up... but that's it...
Any other contenders for set-it-and-forget-it HDD backup/restore utils? Any free ones? Can any util help me with my RHL ext3 partition too? GoBack caused me to use a boot disk to use RHL... and me being afraid of harming Linux (being a newbie), I haven't seen RHL for 2 months now!

[nod32_9]

If you have problem with Ghost, even with a clean install partition with NO OTHER mods done to the OS, then there may be a hardware compatibility issue. The only other solution is to try another software. I doubt that Symantec will come up with a patch to fix your problem in the next few months. Why sweat over a mediocre software that doesn't work on your system?

[iain]

Indeed - my suspicion does now lie with the hardware. Nonetheless it is still bizarre because I would have thought a hardware incompatibility would result in 0% success, not erratic behaviour as I'm experiencing.

Odd as it sounds, I would sooner (within reason) replace a bit of hardware than start testing out different software. This is because I have already got some use and value from my hardware, but I have not yet got use from the software.

Also if I were to buy a new bit of hardware then it would upgrade the component it would be replacing; whereas getting new software - at the present time - wouldn't do anything new.

So does anyone have any thoughts on what *hardware* issues might upset a 'hot imaging' backup program?

[Paranoid2000]

-{ Quote: "I'm actually looking for a proggie that would :
- reliable (no bug, no image perfect till you use it)
- backup a big (approx 30 GBs) system partition onto DVD-r(w)s without having to store the whole back-up on a drive before burning the file (alternatively a proggie that let you store images on a NTFS drive)
- possibility to restore the system with the burnt DVD-rs without having to boot from hard-drives
- no permanent proggie running in background
- possibility to "explore" the files on the burnt DVD-rs to restore individual files on demand" }-There's been enough detailed discussion on the alternatives in this thread to answer most of these questions (although the 3rd requirement seems to contradict your "OK to reboot" statement later). Drive Snapshot should cover all these except that you will need to use a boot disk or another partition to restore a Windows system partition (no program can overwrite a Windows system partition while it is in use). A trial download is available here (http://www.drivesnapshot.de/en/down.htm) so try it and see...-{ Quote: "So does anyone have any thoughts on what *hardware* issues might upset a 'hot imaging' backup program?" }-I can't think of any hardware (aside from faulty memory - use software like Memtest86 (http://www.memtest86.com/) to check this, but it may take a few hours to run) - but there are a lot of software issues. Anything that writes to disk not using standard Windows file/disk access procedures could cause problems (some disk defragmenters and MS SQL server are candidates here - but if in doubt try shutting down all other processes via Task Manager) or anything that amends or limits disk accesses (disk overlay managers, security programs limiting file access - only Tiny firewall springs to mind here though, non-standard DMA/UDMA drivers or even SMART monitors). Even motherboard chipset drivers could be the cause (have you checked for updates?).

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: "
I'm myself looking for a drive/partition backup utility.
I read about Ghost 9 and True Image 8 troubles (even with the latest updates ?). A major turn-off is also that those two programms launch processes that can't be simply turned down even when you don't use it.

" }-I have tried several drive/patition utility's:

1) Powerquest Drive Image v7
2) Norton/Symantec Ghost v9
3) Acronis True Image v8
4) Symantec V2i Protector v2


The very sad and bad results:

1) Powerquest Drive Image v7: backup and restore no problems at all, even no problems with backup and restore to and from an USB-drive.

2) Norton/Symantec Ghost v9: several problems with both backup and restore, and big problems to do the job with an USB-drive.

3) Acronis True Image v8: backup no problem, restoring the image was destroying the target-partition several times.

4) Symantec V2i Protector v2: same problems as with Ghost v9, cause: same technique as Ghost v9.


My conclusion:

for a reliable backup take Drive Image v7, I don't know you can buy it anymore.

Some people are screaming about the long boot time it takes to start the "rescue" boot-cd, but what do they expect/want?

A reliable utility that takes 2-3 minutes to boot or a very fast boot-utility that is not reliable at all?


Ciao,

Smokey

[Loul]

-{ Quote: "Bootit ng should meet these requirements." }-
Thanks for answering.
Can you actually browse a drive backup splited on different volumes (DVD-Rs) without copying all of them onto a Hardrive ?
I know you're a big supporter of this product, but have you tried "Image for Windows" by the same editor ?
Here's a compareason made by the editor : http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/prodgrid.html

I don't care that much for the extra options provided by Bootit in terms of Partition & Boot Management and the use from within Windows (using ironically the same trick as Drive Snapshot :) is pleasing.
Provided you can effectively browse splitted images that proggie would seem very interesting for my needs. Besides it seems easier to use for bootable saves burnt on optical media.

-{ Quote: "There's been enough detailed discussion on the alternatives in this thread to answer most of these questions (although the 3rd requirement seems to contradict your "OK to reboot" statement later). " }-
Thanks for answering too (maybe nod32_9 motivated you referring to BootIt ;-) )

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough as English isn't my mother tongue.
What I meant by "possibility to restore the system with the burnt DVD-rs without having to boot from hard-drives" is the capability to actually restore a system with just Disks/CDs/DVDs as sometimes your hard drive simply won't boot for whatever reason (and I don't want that Vanilla W2K trick even if it suits your personnal needs :-) ).


-{ Quote: "Drive Snapshot should cover all these except that you will need to use a boot disk or another partition to restore a Windows system partition (no program can overwrite a Windows system partition while it is in use). A trial download is available here so try it and see..." }-
As Drive Snapshot doesn't handle the "burning part" is it actually possible to "pause" the backup after each "volume" (I mean a file which holds a part of the whole backup splitted for burning purpose) has been completed to burn them onto a DVD (so you don't need tens of GigaBytes available on your system for this operation) ?

Besides as for BootIt I'm eagerly wanting to have the confirmation that you can browse for a file into the saves burnt on SEVERAL (remember my system is approximatively 30GB that won't hold on a single DVD) DVDs without having to copy all of them onto Hard Drive (you don't always have that much space available).
What is your personnal experience on that topic ?
Thanks for your help !

[nod32_9]

There's no browse option with Bootit. The safest method of "fixing" data is to restore the entire partition. If you have frequently changed data, then move the data to another EXTENDED LOGICAL PARTITION on the same hard drive and image that partition. There is no need to image the whole hard drive.

Check out my review of IFW in another post. If you MUST have a windows-based imaging software, then IFW may be worth a look. I want the highest degree of reliability when creating and restoring the image file. That's why I use Bootit.

[iain]

Smokey, could you say some more about the problems you experienced with Ghost 9? Did you get the "pqi" error I've been describing in this thread?

-{ Quote: "I can't think of any hardware (aside from faulty memory - use software like Memtest86 (http://www.memtest86.com/) to check this, but it may take a few hours to run) - but there are a lot of software issues. Anything that writes to disk not using standard Windows file/disk access procedures could cause problems (some disk defragmenters and MS SQL server are candidates here - but if in doubt try shutting down all other processes via Task Manager) or anything that amends or limits disk accesses (disk overlay managers, security programs limiting file access - only Tiny firewall springs to mind here though, non-standard DMA/UDMA drivers or even SMART monitors). Even motherboard chipset drivers could be the cause (have you checked for updates?)." }-
Thanks very much for these further suggestions. Memtest was just the sort of really thorough prog I'd been looking for... and lo and behold! It showed up about 160 errors on each pass. Now I need to work by elimination to work out which module is to blame. A memory problem would certainly account for the *inconsistent* Ghost behaviour (though it *does* surprise me that this hasn't affected any other apps). So maybe Symantec support were right all along that one ought to "swap out the RAM", despite my earlier protestations. <blush>

I'll keep you informed, and hopefully whatever happens the experience will help somebody else.

[tim74]

-{ Quote: "I have tried several drive/patition utility's:

1) Powerquest Drive Image v7
2) Norton/Symantec Ghost v9
3) Acronis True Image v8
4) Symantec V2i Protector v2

My conclusion:

for a reliable backup take Drive Image v7, I don't know you can buy it anymore.

Some people are screaming about the long boot time it takes to start the "rescue" boot-cd, but what do they expect/want?

A reliable utility that takes 2-3 minutes to boot or a very fast boot-utility that is not reliable at all?
" }-

I've been using Drive Image for years and has saved me tens of hours. When I saw DI 7 could do "hot" backups, I had to have it. The booting from CD and the time it takes IS the only annoyance. But Symantec had already snagged it. I bought my DI 7 on eBay. So far Symantec has snagged a bunch of programs I used to use. They work but I don't entirely like what they do to them or trust they are of the same quality. Drive Image 7 has caused me NO problems. The only thing that brings me to research others is a recent PC World article that had good things to say of True Image. Drive Image also completely sets up external USB or CD/DVD burners making the options that much easier. I've never really needed to image/restore a hidden partition but I do have them. I have PartitionMagic around and turning on/off a partition for imaging is extremely simple. Looking at these discussions, it looks a wise choice for me to snag the last version of Drive Image before Symantec started trying to fit under the Ghost name.

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: "I've been using Drive Image for years and has saved me tens of hours. When I saw DI 7 could do "hot" backups, I had to have it. The booting from CD and the time it takes IS the only annoyance. But Symantec had already snagged it. I bought my DI 7 on eBay. So far Symantec has snagged a bunch of programs I used to use. They work but I don't entirely like what they do to them or trust they are of the same quality. Drive Image 7 has caused me NO problems. The only thing that brings me to research others is a recent PC World article that had good things to say of True Image. Drive Image also completely sets up external USB or CD/DVD burners making the options that much easier. I've never really needed to image/restore a hidden partition but I do have them. I have PartitionMagic around and turning on/off a partition for imaging is extremely simple. Looking at these discussions, it looks a wise choice for me to snag the last version of Drive Image before Symantec started trying to fit under the Ghost name." }-Glad that somebody agree with my positive opinion about Drive Image v7.;D

Magazines like PC-World I always read with a lot of scepsis, the reality is what counts.

They are doing one test and have then their opinion ready:o , I work every day with, in this case, image utility's and because all other image utility's failed and Drive Image never, never showed any problem I stay with it.


Ciao,

Smokey

[TomEhlert]

-{ Quote: "
>>So does anyone have any thoughts on what *hardware* issues might upset a 'hot imaging' backup program

I can't think of any hardware - but there are a lot of software issues. Anything that writes to disk not using standard Windows file/disk access procedures could cause problems (some disk defragmenters and MS SQL server are candidates here - but if in doubt try shutting down all other processes via Task Manager) or anything that amends or limits disk accesses (disk overlay managers, security programs limiting file access - only Tiny firewall springs to mind here though, non-standard DMA/UDMA drivers or even SMART monitors). Even motherboard chipset drivers could be the cause (have you checked for updates?)." }-

As author of Drive Snapshot I might be qualified to answer that.

Drive Snapshot (and probably also TI/DI) work on the raw disk level, and intercepts calls, going to 'write sector 15, 4096 byte length'

So interception works with virtually any software like disk defraggers (file system level) (tested), MS SQL (some of it writes directly to sector 123) (tested) and similar stuff. It probably wouldn't work with Disk Manager(this requires exclusive access to the disk anyway).
UDMA again is no problem, unless it suddenly stops working.

it even works with disk encryption software, that work on sector level as well like Saveguard Easy.

So far, this technic works with basically everything, unless you write your own device driver to do direct *physical* disk writes, just to prove me wrong.

[iain]

Dear Tom Ehlert

Many thanks for contributing to the discussion.

I'm sure as I can be that I'm not experiencing a software conflict with the 'hot imaging' facility (of Ghost 9 in my case, but I guess the technology for the actual intercepting of disk writes is essentially the same), because I've tried it on a fresh XP install.

In your experience, could my seemingly bad RAM -- as reported by Memtest86, although not otherwise obvious -- account for the oddly inconsistent behavior (the "invalid or corrupt" but nevetheless browsable backups) I've been experiencing?

Thanks.

[Loul]

Hehe I'm glad to see Tom Elhert contributing to this thread.
I actually emailed him this afternoon (in Europe) to have some more info about Drive Snapshot capabilities and he kindly answered me a couple of hours later ( that's a sign of good software support, isn't it ?).
I find it amusing since I didn't refer to this thread :)


I'm sure he won't mind that I paste his answer in here

-{ Quote: "
> Provided you want to split the image in multiple parts so it can't be
> burnt onto DVD by a third party software (since Drive Snapshot doesn't
> handle this) is it possible to :

> 1) pause the backup after each Disk Image file is completed ?
> the idea would be to be able to deal with limited free space on the
> system (of course preferrably on another partition) so that one could
> pause the backup every 4.7 GB and burn the sn? file onto DVD-R

Sorry, this currently isn't posible, and will have to wait until
finally we burn the CD ourself.

> 2) Is it possible to browse files of a backup splitted on different
> DVD-Rs without having to copy all of them onto Hard Drive (long and
> again huge need of space for large partitions) ?
no.

Drive Snapshot only saves sectors, no files.
so to recover even a single file, the browser (actually NT/XP) has to
access some bitmaps, the root directore, the subdirectory,..., and
finally the file; therefore it's really needed to have them all online
at the same time.

> The method used by DiskImage Explore seems to indicate you have to group
> all files on Hard Drive to be able to do a partial restore, so is it
> possible to recover a file directly from a partial save (say .sn3 file)
> ?
this isn't possib;e for the same reasons.

kind regards
tom" }-

-{ Quote: "

There's no browse option with Bootit. The safest method of "fixing" data is to restore the entire partition. If you have frequently changed data, then move the data to another EXTENDED LOGICAL PARTITION on the same hard drive and image that partition. There is no need to image the whole hard drive.

Check out my review of IFW in another post. If you MUST have a windows-based imaging software, then IFW may be worth a look. I want the highest degree of reliability when creating and restoring the image file. That's why I use Bootit." }-

Actually it surprised me you couldn't restore any individual file with BootIt/Image for Windows as I thougt the opposite so I went back to TeraByte site.
Actually you can with TBIView (TM) which is provided on their website at that address http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/utilities.html :
TBIView extends Windows Explorer by enabling it to open image files created by Terabyte Unlimited's Image or BootIt NG software programs.

If the image file is based on a FAT, FAT32 or NTFS partition then you'll be able to view and extract individual files or folders. See the readme.txt file in the zip for more information.

Here's what the readme.txt says about that programm's use.

-{ Quote: "
Notes:
~~~~~~
The image files produced by Image and BootIt NG are not optimized for
individual file/folder access. Although it is possible to extract all
folders and files, doing so will require significant more time than
extracting the image as it was intended (using Image or BootIt NG).

The performance of extracting files/folders from a FAT/FAT32 based image
is better than an NTFS based image. This is due to the format of the
image file which requires redundant decompression to traverse NTFS.

When first opening an image file there will typically be a delay before
the file is opened, particularly with NTFS.

If you attempt to access an image file from a multi-CD set then there may
be a significant amount of CD swapping needed. This is particularly true
if your file folders are fragmented over the entire partition. You can
reduce some CD swapping needs by opening the image file in view mode
instead of explore mode.

If you drag and drop a folder from the tree view (left window pane) then
only that folder will be extracted (the contents will not be extracted).
To drag and drop the folder and its contents, use the right window pane.

The extraction of items is more efficient when using extract from the file
menu or right click context menu than it is when dragging and dropping.

Extracting of a multi-stream file from NTFS will result in only the data
from the normal stream." }-


So it does seem that BootIt/Image for Windows will meet my personnal requirements and I'd like to thank you again for telling us about it. I will definitely try one of them in the coming days (I need to do some files sorting first :-) ).

[nod32_9]

My bad. TBI Viewer is a free add-on ultility that's provided on an as-is-no-warranty basis. You can try it on your system, but I wouldn't rely on this for mission-critical stuffs.

"The image files produced by Image and BootIt NG are not optimized for
individual file/folder access."

[Tim74]

-{ Quote: "Glad that somebody agree with my positive opinion about Drive Image v7.;D
" }-

Just another note about Drive Image 7. I've never restored single files but thats fairly easy. A new feature that fascinated me the most in version 7 was the ability to mount a image.

I thought it a rather interesting trick to have a highly compressed image mounted as a lettered hard drive in Windows Explorer. I can't add stuff to it but I can pull files, run programs and dink around in the image as if it were a separate hard drive or partition.

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: "Just another note about Drive Image 7. I've never restored single files but thats fairly easy. " }-I have, without any problems.

Ciao,

Smokey

[nod32_9]

The older DI 5 has a much smaller installation footprint, and works will ALL versions of windows. No problem with image creation/restoration. You can fit DI 5 on a 3.5" floppy. Good imaging software like DI 5, Bootit ng, and Snapshot share some common traits. They are small, robust, and simple to use.

[xyz123]

Now here's a program that's been around for a while I haven't seen mentioned here yet. It's called Restore It. http://www.farstone.com/home/ensite/products/rit.shtml

It looks somewhat like Symantec's Go-Back. But it also seems to have the ability to store your backup data on cd/dvd as well as on a secret partition on your hard drive like Go-Back/First Defense (not sure about storing it on internal/external hard drive).

It seems sorta like a combination of Go-Back and Ghost in one program (though I doubt it's really that good).

Has anyone had any experience with the program? Or know more about it?

[no13]

I'm about to trial these backup products one-by-one on an XP system (we kept an old system at home, my friend and I, and now we've found a use for it)
I'll do a check based on user friendliness mainly. What I need to know is, in case I want to buy a license do I need to redownload the whole package? Or can I convert the already installed trial product into fully functional? (I won't buy a product so hastily, but we have some people who like back up products as soon as they witness their first crash)
I'm referring to DI, TI and the new entrant RIT. FDISR doesn't support FAT32 and we'll skip that for now.

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: "The older DI 5 has a much smaller installation footprint, and works will ALL versions of windows. No problem with image creation/restoration. You can fit DI 5 on a 3.5" floppy. Good imaging software like DI 5, Bootit ng, and Snapshot share some common traits. They are small, robust, and simple to use." }-Is it possible to backup to an USB-drive?

Ciao,

Smokey

[nod32_9]

DI 5 is an older software, and since I don't have an external USB, I can't give you a definite YES answer. It will work with USB zip. Bootit will handle external USB.

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: "DI 5 is an older software, and since I don't have an external USB, I can't give you a definite YES answer. It will work with USB zip. Bootit will handle external USB." }-Thanks.

Maybe other forum-members know the answer (or not);)

Ciao,

Smokey

[iain]

Well folks, it's time for me to eat humble pie, after cursing Ghost 9 over the last few weeks.

The culprit was my one of my RAM modules.

Thanks to Paranoid2000's suggestion of the excellent Memtest86, I was able to work identify the faulty module and -- with just two days left before the RAM guarantee expired!! -- get it exchanged. Bizarrely the problem with Ghost was the ONLY apparent effect of the faulty module. Everything else in the system had been running fine, and RAM checkers running within Windows hadn't detected the fault.

Sincere thanks to Paranoid2000 for the assistance. :)

p.s. to Smokey, don't forget that there is a huge speed difference between USB and USB2 (the latter of which is faster than firewire 400, in fact). Sorry if I am stating the obvious but do be aware that backing up to an older USB device may be excrutiatingly slow...

[nod32_9]

Glad you were able to isolate the hardware issue. Is this a Crucial and/or factory RAM module? Most value RAMs are craps. I'm sure others can learn from your experience.

[no13]

Join the club iain.
I lost two months of learning time (never got around to completing ISO c++) because of faulty RAM. Howlong did it take for your test to complete? someone else tested for me (Memtest86 was used) and it showed multiple Read/write errors within 1 screenful of data!! I never found out if that Ram module had ANY operational areas.
It usually takes 6-8 hours for the test, right?

[Tim74b]

-{ Quote: "Is it possible to backup to an USB-drive?" }- - referring to Drive Image 5


I just ran some tests on stuff I haven't done before and to satisfy Smokey's question and others. DI 5 has no trouble seeing my USB external drive or both my DVD/CDRW drives. It mounts all the compatible partitions for use whether they are hidden or not. I did a test and it burned an image to a CDRW no problem. One thing I didn't know it would do is make the CD bootable and install the restore utility of DI 5 on the disk to work with. I tried burning an image to a DVDRW but that didn't work. It didn't work in DI 7 either though it's supposed to. However, DI 5 does see the files on my DVDRW disks so one could create an image to the hard drive and burn it to DVD (in windows) and restore it from the disk when needed.

The only reason I moved to DI 7 is I thought being able to backup without dropping to DOS was a great feature. But it does require installing the .NET framework from Microsoft. I haven't researched why people don't like .NET.

I did some speed comparisons of the time it takes for these packages to do their work. I have a 2.4Ghz Celeron and I did the tests on a my C: partition on my Western Digital drive. The partition has 3.75Gig of data to image. NA is for not applicable, times were rounded to the nearest 10 seconds. True Image offers High and Maximum as top choices where Drive Image offers High. Final image sizes are noted next to creation times. The create image time column also indicates what operating system I was in when I created the image, if applicable or possible.

___________________Drive Image 5_____Drive Image 7___True Image 8
Create image time
________Dos Max:_______NA______________NA_________40:20(1.93GB)
________Dos High:_____25:00(2.09GB)______NA_________11:00(1.98GB)
______WinXP Max:_______NA______________NA_________19:20(1.92GB)
______WinXP High:_______NA__________14:00(1.94GB)____9:00(1.97GB)

Restore image time
_________PQI file:______22:20____________5:40____________NA
_________V2i file:________NA_____________6:00____________NA
_________TIB file:________NA_____________NA___________6:00(max)
____________________________________________________6:20(high)

Utility Boot Time:________1:20(diskettes)____3:30(CD)______0:39(CD)
______________________0:36(bootable backup image CD)

Drive image verifies images by default before restoring but can be unchecked. I think it's good practice to check them. True Image doesn't by default but I checked the box to do it. It added about 1:50 to the restore time. My boot time with the DI 7 CD may be slowed since it can't seem to find my ethernet chip integrated into my motherboard. I get several errors before it gives up and tells me it can't find a network interface card.

PQI is the extension for DI 5 images, TIB is for True Image and DI 7 restores both the older PQI files and the newer V2i files but creates V2i files when it does images.

True Image crashed once while it wasn't really doing anything in Windows and I was off checking something in Windows Explorer. The one incremental backup I did with True Image after installing a few programs took about
5 minutes. Neither Drive Image package has this feature.

[bachscuttler]

My experience of both these apps is that anything Norton is a nightmare to re-install if it goes belly up.
I recently had some serious PC woes and my Norton Firewall, AV and Ghost 9 gave me error after error when tryting to re-install.
I gave up in disgust as this was not the first time I had had problems which is what brought me to NOD32 which I love. I replaced the Firewall and also moved to True Image.
True Image was a breeze to install, set up and use and has ran trouble free ever since. :)

[nod32_9]

I like to keep it simple. Programs that must use .NET add another layer of complexity to the system.

Back to DI 5. Did you write the image file to another partition (same HD) or to an external HD? 25 min to image a 3.75 GB partition is way too slow for your system. My 600MHz PIII with DI 5 could process a 700MB WXP boot partition in under 3 min (same HD, different partition). That would translate to about 14 min to image a 3.75 GB partition.

DI 5 reports an average process time at the completion of the image file. It is normal for a Dell 4600 to hit an average speed of 1.6 GB/min during image creation. An old 266MHz PII Gateway would yield somewhere between 130 and 150 MB/min.

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: "- referring to Drive Image 5


I just ran some tests on stuff I haven't done before and to satisfy Smokey's question and others. DI 5 has no trouble seeing my USB external drive" }-Thanks for the answer!

Ciao,

Smokey

[JW Clements]

Hope no one gets upset, but I don't like the backups to CD/DVD, tried it, but I have found a really good alternative. It does cost a bit extra, but my payback is that I no longer worry about recovering from anything... and I can recover verrry quickly. So here goes...
----------------------------------------------------
Layers of protection:
1) Hardware backup
a) Raid 1 provides protection from failure of a single drive
b) Western Digital 36GB Raptors, 5 year warranty, reliability
c) a spare drive in case one of the Raid 1 drives fails, installed
immediately in array awaiting replacement of failed drive
d) Copy Raid 1 image to bootable IDE HDD of 'same' size (40GB),
weekly, in case both Raid drives fail at the same time or
malicious code corrupts entire Raid array contents.
Power OFF, connect IDE backup, insert V-Com diskette or CD
Power ON, (change BIOS to boot from CD if appropriate),
run Copy Commander (DOS MODE app) and
copy (my time=45 minutes, total=7.4GB for 4 partitions
c:=4.5GB, d:=692MB, e:=2.2GB, f:=64MB)
Power OFF, disconnect IDE,
Power ON to a normal session
Recovery to IDE:
Power OFF, disconnect Raid drives, connect IDE backup,
Power ON and your up and running. Time=5 minutes.
Reverse the process if you need to copy the IDE to the Raid.
e) sensitive data is stored on a USB Flash memory stick
f ) extremely sensitive data is stored on a second PC that is
nor connected to the primary PC.
2) Software 'backup' on Raid 1
a) First Defense snapshots allow safe recovery to a previous
state when 'sandbox' testing of new/beta software or when
malicious code infects the current snapshot. Automatically
boots to backup if current snapshot is corrupted (no BSOD).
3) Security software
a) IP provider provides anti-virus and anti-spam filters
b) Firewall Zone Alarm Professional
c) Anti-virus PC-cillan
d) Anti-trojan TDS-3 scanner
e) Execution filters Process Guard, PrevX, TDS-3, Worm Guard
f) Download filters AdWatch, Spyware Guard
f) Site filters Spyware Blaster. Zone Alarm, IE Restricted sites
AdWatch
g) Content filters AdSubrtact, Proxomitron
h) Monitors BHODemon, RegProtect, PrevX, Port Explorer,
Spy Bot Search and Destroy-TeaTimer,
WormGuard, TDS-3 for port 5000 alerts
DCS APM and APT, RegMon
i) Scanner/Cleaners PC-cillan, TDS-3, AdAwareSE, SpyBot S&D,
MRU Blaster, Crap Cleaner
j) Scanners Hijack This, DCS AutoStart Viewer
k) Killers DSC Advanced Process Termination
(which I've never had to use, thankfully)

I classified the software according to my own opinions, actually there is
overlap in functionallity amongst many of the applications.

The sequence of the list is arbitrary and isn't meant to indicate preference
or priority.

There may be other applications that perform the same functions but I have
not tried them because I have found that these do have satisfy my needs.
I use V-Com's Partition Commander package which includes:
Copy Commander, which I use to copy the HDD images and
System Commander, which I cannot use (for multi-booting)
because both it and First Defense (by Raxco) want to 'own' the MBR.
(Thus GoBack also can't be used, but First Defense is, in my opinion, best
suited for my needs and objectives. )

I purchased the above applications, where commercially offered, in order to
support the vendors and 'ensure' continued support.
I have not contributed to any 'freeware' due, in my opinion, to the lack of a
secure, yet easy, method of funds transfer.


Jim

[iain]

-{ Quote: "Is this a Crucial and/or factory RAM module?" }-
It was, unfortunately, a s**t one from PC World. I am not sure if you are based in the UK and are familiar with this terrible "computer superstore" -- staffed seemingly entirely by people with no knowledge of computers -- but I had run out of money and time when I bought the RAM and it was the most convenient place to buy it from. It was definitely the weakest link in the system. The other RAM module from there has worked OK. My two further modules are by Crucial but have a lifetime warantee, so that's relatively OK. I agree that ideally I'd use a much better brand. Next time... :)
-{ Quote: "Howlong did it take for your test to complete? someone else tested for me (Memtest86 was used) and it showed multiple Read/write errors within 1 screenful of data!! I never found out if that Ram module had ANY operational areas. It usually takes 6-8 hours for the test, right?" }-
Actually it was pretty quick to run its default tests. The deceptive thing is that it will keep re-running the tests until you tell it to stop, so it might appear to be taking longer. About 5 mins on 512Mb of DDR400 with an 800FSB, and about 20 mins on 2048Mb. No doubt the extended tests take longer, but I was more than content to work on eliminating my 136 errors before letting it look in more depth for any more! :)

[Tim74b]

-{ Quote: "Back to DI 5. Did you write the image file to another partition (same HD) or to an external HD? 25 min to image a 3.75 GB partition is way too slow for your system. My 600MHz PIII with DI 5 could process a 700MB WXP boot partition in under 3 min (same HD, different partition). That would translate to about 14 min to image a 3.75 GB partition.

DI 5 reports an average process time at the completion of the image file. It is normal for a Dell 4600 to hit an average speed of 1.6 GB/min during image creation. An old 266MHz PII Gateway would yield somewhere between 130 and 150 MB/min." }-

I wrote it to a different partition on the same drive. Actually the partition size was 15 GB. Remember I was backing up 3.75 GB of ACTUAL data. I don't know if I've ever experienced DI 5 too speedy in Dos. I've used it on different hard drives, different motherboards etc. Also I was using the highest compression for most the tests. I'm sacrificing a lot speed waiting for DI to figure what and how the data can be compressed. I want small files so I don't fill up my backup partition too quickly.

[tim74c]

-{ Quote: "

Encrypted volumes work good for that type of stuff. When you need it, you enter a long password and the software mounts the file as a drive to your computer and it looks like another partition. All data inside is encrypted and only appears as a file when not mounted. PGPDisk is one example. The data isn't visible unless you've mounted the file and it's portable.

[nod32_9]

DI 5 will use Caldera DOS with WXP. DI 5 will only image the actual data in the 15 GB drive to end up with in image file that's approximately 2 GB. It's very strange that your system and DI 5 can only process data at a speed of 150 MB/min. I also used HIGH compression! Is your WD HD running in DMA mode 4 or 5 in the BIOS?

I've used DI 5 on HPs, E-machines, Dells, Compaqs, and Gateways. The 266 MHz PII Gateway was the only machine that posted a speed lower than 150 MB/min. Windows cannot affect the speed of DI 5 because the program does not run in windows.

Perhaps you could test Bootit ng (another non-windows imaging software) and post Bootit's speed.

[Tim74c]

-{ Quote: " I also used HIGH compression! Is your WD HD running in DMA mode 4 or 5 in the BIOS?" }-

Until you pointed it out, I hadn't really considered it slow. I usually leave the BIOS for auto detection. I also tested DI 5 with using a win98 boot disk and then running pqdi.exe from a separate partition. I keep a folder of utilities around if trouble should arise. Then I can get DI and partitionmagic going to start fixing things without having a stack of disks around. Anyway, while the utility boot time was faster, the image creation time was the same whether I used windows dos or the Caldera Dr Dos.

I have a Maxtor drive as a slave and the only thing that's been consistent since I've been using DI 5 is Maxtor drives being in the system somewhere. Though when I think on it, back in the day when I was imaging win98 chock full of programs, I remember the times only taking 15-20 minutes. Restore times were rather fast, usually only 10-12 minutes.

I'll have to do some more tests.

[tim74]

You're right. I found a setting in my BIOS that was disabled by default. Specifically the IDE Bus Master. I re-ran the image creation by DI 5 and it only took 5:23. I'm going to rerun the other packages to see what happens.

[nod32_9]

Thanks for the feedback. Non-windows imaging software are very simple and robust. They should work well if the BIOS and HDs are properly configured.

You can use DI 5 to create two 3.5" boot floppies. The only time that you would need to use the boot floppies is if you cannot boot into windows. I always click on the DI icon from windows if I want to run DI. The program will reboot the PC and launch the DI menu screen. The whole procedure takes about 30 seconds. The speed of image restoration is always faster (by approximately 70%) than image creation.

[barry2004]

-{ Quote: "I have used TI on my RAID 0 array many times. It works great.

Running an Asus P4C800E-Deluxe, and two Maxtor SATA drives in a RAID 0 array. That was one of the reasons I switched from ghost 2003, to TI, it supported my RAID array.

Tipton" }-
Could you please help me out here. Running the same config I cant get ghost9 restore to work cause it doesn't find my 2 hard drives.(maxtor sata 120GB in raid0). What could be going on here, same mobo, same raid, saim hdds, perhaps jumpering the sata drives or using the wrong connectors on the mobo?

[barry2004]

In my p4c800e (maxtor 2x120 raid0) i can't get ghost 9 recovery see my ntfs partitions. Right now using the promise controller but having identical probs with the intel ich. Is this a bios setting or perhaps sata drive jumpering? I think i've tried all bios setting combinations, could someone help me out perhaps?

[kds2012]

Hey -- My vote would be for True Image, except for one ANNOYING PROBLEM. TI always restores images into a 4K cluster size format. If you image a small partition, say 750 MB that has a 2K cluster size, get ready, 'cause it's gonna come out 4K. Acronis says that TI is just using the "optimal cluster size," which is just plain not true. I KNOW 'cause I directly compared the exact same partition at 4K & 2K cluster sizes: The smaller cluster saved me almost 3 MB on about 400 MB of data.

Maybe Acronis thinks this is too small to worry about. But then I wonder, why would they even include the "Change Cluster Size" option in Partition Expert, if their other product, TI, just changes it back?"

[nod32_9]

It's called POOR PRODUCT DESIGN. The sole purpose of an imaging software is to copy exactly all the contents in each partition/hard drive. That includes the cluster size! I discovered the cluster size issue with TI 6 server.

[kds2012]

I just now got a reply from Acronis saying: (quote)

"Thank you for interest in Acronis software!
Please be sure that the cluster size of a restored partition is the same as the cluster size of original partion."

I think they're trying to say, "Please BE ASSURED that the cluster size won't change..." Otherwise it makes no sense. Then they say:

"You can download Acronis True Image 8.0 trial version at http://acronis.com/download/trueimage/ in order to make sure it will work on your computer."

Maybe they corrected the cluster problem in v8 (I was using v7). I'll give it a try, but I'm skeptical. And of course I'll have to crack it, because Acronis says right on their download page that you CANNOT RESTORE images with the trial version, in which case I wonder, HOW CAN I "Make sure it will work on my computer!!?"

[John Butler]

I used Drive Image &.3 without any problems for about a year but recently after installing Windows XP Pro Service Pack 2 DI 7 became very unreliable, either not finding my drives or finding them and then giving an "object not found error message" and closing down. So I upgraded to Ghost 9, and found it to be a really bad program. It had the same problems as DI 7 but worse. When it did work, I created a system backup as an image of my 120GB SATA system drive on an Iomeg external 160Gb HDD.

I tested the Recovery rocedure from the Ghost 9 CD it found the image OK but reported that the image had been vreated by an earlier version of Ghost and that I would need ghosr.exe to restore the image.

It seems that Ghost 9 is a despaerately bad program for SATA drives and that true Image though less sophiostecated is mcuh moe reliable.

John

[aucomp]

I have been trying toget Ghost 2003 and V8 to image my sata raid 1 drives for months and with no luck at all.

I am now reluctant to even try Ghost 9.

I am amazed a great prodcut like ghost has gone this way!

[BerlFLei]

And then there's the problem that Ghost 9 restore REAL slow, if at all - I lost my C:\windows folder, because GHOST 9 would not restore it, even though I could browse it fine with the Ghost Explorer.

ARGH - I waited a half hour to pay $30 for assistance before giving up.

NEVER BUY SYMANTEC PRODUCTS - they are a corrupt organization.

[csmith99]

I'm a sad sad guy...

In 8+ years building my own systems and loading/upgrading my own software I have NEVER lost any data for any reason. I have always managed to copy data from one system to the next; I have never had a damaging virus; I have never lost my system to spyware...etc. Most importantly, I had never had a backup.

About a week ago, I thought I had lost everything though when my power went out and my computer would not boot. Turned out to be pretty easy as the mbr just got corrupted probably due to my gig of RAM but it was a wakeup call and I decided to purchase GHOST 9.0 and run a backup. I have a P4S800D-E board and I have two 200gb SATA drives which I was running in Raid 0. I really didn't need it and after some reports in the last few months showing very little gains with this config and showing the possibility of data loss, I decided I would kill the RAID and reload.

I had a brand new IDE 120gb drive I had purchased to upgrade my TIVO and I installed it in my system to save the backup file. I ran ghost the first time and it worked great. I was able to browse the image folders and make some changes but I got so busy with it, I made so many changes I decided to just burn a new image of my drive. I ran the backup and the next day I started with the reload. ***I NEVER THOUGHT TO TEST THE BACKUP...AFTER ALL, I NEVER HEARD ANYTHING BAD ABOUT GHOST-HECK, ITS SOLID AT WORK!! AND THE FIRST BACKUP WORKED FLAWLESSLY***

Well, I got all reloaded tonight and when I went to get my image off the ide drive, I get the famous "Internal Structure of the PQI is Invalid" crap. I scoured the Symantec website and found nothing except, "Oh yeah, this might happen and their isn't crap we can tell you about how to fix it."

I went through the priority support BS and called for help but after about an hour, they never picked up. I then saw the part on the website where they say then take calls from 6-5PT m-f. Would have been nice if it said that on the phone but all I got was "please hold, we will answer calls in the order they are received". Buttwads!!!

So then, I find this site and my stomach sinks somewhere between my ass and my toes...I'm not sure exactly where it went. I now realize as with everybody else on here with SATA drives that this program doesn't work with them though they won't admit it.

I'm totally screwed. I've got a 14.5gb image that is totally useless. I've lost 4-5 years worth of emails, addresses, phone numbers, taxes, bank account info, resumes, training materials, pictures, mp3's....

I just can't believe it.

I know its not nearly as severe but I feel similar to someone who just had their house burn down and they can't do anything about it except lament over woulda coulda shoulda.

The best part is I paid $70 to get screwed and there is no way in hell Best Buy will refund it!!!

[iain]

Oh dear, that's awful. Sorry to hear about your problems with the infamous "PQI" problem.

There may still be hope. I had an old hard drive (along with everything else in the PC!) fried last year. It was totally dead, but a data recovery company were able to get it all back. It cost about £200.

In the worst case scenario you would need to pay £1000+ to have a badly damaged disk opened in a dust free room, but apparently much of the data usually can be recovered, if you need it badly enough to pay that amount.

Have you asked data recovery firms if they might be able to examine the image file? NB the "PQI corrupt" images I made were still browsable/extractable within Windows.

Ghost 9 CAN work on SATA drives, by the way: my problem was the RAM. But this doesn't excuse the crummy customer "support" you've endured.

Anyway good luck!

[nod32_9]

What happened to the data in the master boot drive?

Rule #1:
Avoid imaging software that run IN windows. The image file is crap if the software cannot achieve a good "lock" on the copied partition. Stick with non-windows imaging software if you demand the highest degree of reliability. Checkout Bootit ng. And no, I'm not affiliated with Terabyte.

Rule #2:
KISS. Avoid complex imaging software that require .NET and over 20MB of HD space. Bigger program=more codes=more conflicts.

Rule #3:
Stay away from any product whose parent company is SYMANTEC. I'm going to say it again. This is a greedy acquisition company. It acquires and repacks a well-known product without giving second thought about CUSTOMER SUPPORT!

Just remember that ALL windows-based software must boot out of windows to restore a primary ACTIVE partition. Therefore, there is no true windows-based imaging software.

[JayTee]

nod32_9

A little off topic, but would u recommend Image For Windows, or BootIt in place of Ghost and ATI 8?

Thanks

[huntnyc]

For nod32_9,

Your information has been great and is much appreciated. I started out using DI 5 and went up to DI 7, but now I don't have my old serial number or copy of DI 5. What do you think I could do to get my old serial number back and a copy of this? Also, can you burn images to DVD and have DI 5 still read them and restore them?

Thanks again.

Gary

[nod32_9]

IFW is still a windows-based program. Bootit ng does not run in windows. If you don't like Bootit, then give IFW a try. Note that the trial version of IFW does not allow you to restore to a PRIMARY ACTIVE PARTITION (often the C partition in the HD). You will need IFDos to do this. And you don't get IFD unless you paid for IFW!

I don't know if DI 5 will support DVD burning. My buddy has a DVD burner and DI 5. Will repost if I get a chance to run some tests. Post your email here if you need more help with DI 5.

[huntnyc]

Thanks and I might give BootIT a good try. Sounds good to me. Thanks.

Gary

[matthew]

I've followed your forum with interest since I bought a copy of ghost 9.0 and encounted the infamous PQI error whilst creating the image. The very first time I used ghost, the image was created fine, but when I did a full image again this pqi error came up about 75% into creating the image to a network drive. I have since asked for a refund on ghost since I spent enough time trying to fix this problem to no avail. I've just downloaded the trial version of acronis True Image, and so far I'm very impressed. The image was created about twice as fast as ghost and encounted no errors (this time to a usb2 drive instead of over the network so maybe that accounts for the speed increase). I checked the image and it is fine. Since symantec took over ghost, it seems to have become a floored product and I would not trust it again with something as important as backing up my computer.

[richrf]

Hi everyone,

My quest for a simple to use image copy program continues. I tried out Image for DOS which worked well on my first try but when I added a second image copy to my external USB 2.0 drive the validation process was never able to confirm giving me errors on each try. Also TBView was unable to read my first image copy - presumably my clean one - that I made a month ago.

This is pretty exassperating. I thought making a clean image copy would be a no brainer. I am not convinced that an Windows based tool can guarantee a clean copy. For example, how does a product like Acronis know that when it begins to copy, the image is "logically" consistent - e.g. the registry is in a consistent state. Do I need to take extra precautions when I begin a windows-based image copy? Is there another DOS-based program that I can try out?

ll I want is a really simple image copy program that I know that will really work for Christmas. Thanks for any help.

Rich

[Eliot]

Ghost 9 beats TI 8 hands down in one category IMHO. DVD burning. I must have the ability to burn to DVD for this particular pc and TI just can't work with any of the 4 or 5 brand DVD RW + and - that I have tried. :lurking: I would give True Image the edge over Ghost in probably every other aspect, especially native NIC and RAID support with no drivers from me. *puppy*

[iain]

richrf, have you tried the DOS-based Ghost 2003? It worked well for me. It's included in the Ghost 9 package.

matthew, I really strongly suggest that you run the memory checking prog listed earlier in this thread; unbeknown to me I had a bad RAM module which was entirely responsible for the PQI errors. This isn't to say that Ghost 9 is a perfect product, just that the PQI errors are caused by hardware, not software.

[richrf]

Hi iain,

Thanks for the tip. Is there a trial version of Ghost 2003 available anywhere?

Hoping you are having a great Thanksgiving.

Rich

[iain]

You're welcome.

I'm not aware of a Ghost 2003 trial version -- though there may indeed be one -- but you might be able to get a cheap copy of the full program now that it has been replaced by Ghost 9.

The key difference between the two is that whereas Ghost 2003 can be run entirely from a DOS floppy disk (though it can also be controlled through an executable windows interface which will reboot the PC and do its work in DOS), Ghost 9 runs wholly as a Windows .NET service controlled by an executable program.

To be honest, if you can afford it, I would suggest getting Ghost 9 because the package will provide you with two very different ways of backing up the PC, from which you can then choose.

[nod32_9]

Did you give the 2nd image file a new name?

I don't rely on USB (even HI-SPEED) for mission-critical stuffs cause it can get FUNKY without any warning. It's always best to stick to SATA or PATA cable when you're moving huge amount of data. A quick-release internal hard drive bracket will allow the user to remove the slave hard drive in a few seconds.

There is a difference between IFW/IFD and Bootit ng. Bootit does not deal with windows. Do give Bootit a try if you haven't done so.

[richrf]

Hi all,.

I will think about getting Ghost 9. I am a but gun shy since everything so far has been a problem.

Yes, I renamed my files. Maybe USB is to funky for this kind of work. But the first copy went to easy and so well. Now all subsequent ones are bombing out. I just tried Bootitng. It got half way through and - KABOOOOM! Maybe I should wait until spring when the weather is better. My luck may change.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Rich

[nod32_9]

May want to check out...

1.RAM modules. Marginal RAMs can take down a PC when the system is under stress. Search GOOG for MEMCHECK.

2.USB cable. You may not be able to see the damage.

3.USB driver. Reload and/or update as required.

4.Check the HD's website for new drivers/patches (if applicable).

5.Since Bootit runs outside of windows, I tend to believe that you have a hardware issue. I would also wipe the HD clean and give Bootit another try.

Good luck.

[buckley]

Thx for all the information that I gathered from this thread till now.
I started out using ghost 9 and looked on the net for some more information and by reading this topic I gave Drive Snapshot (http://www.drivesnapshot.de/en/) a try.
I must say that I didnt fully got to know ghost 9 cause Drive Snapshot is so simple in use that I started to rely on it immediatly.
Making images feels now so easy that I actualy do it :) The interface is bare to the bone but I think the options are all there. I am not an expert on this but this is what I like :

- You can make an image while running windows and it realy works (The author explains in a previous reply how he pulls it off).
I know some people will feel more safe doing it when the system is offline but this is going to be the standard in the future. Only the program MS exchange doesnt like it so you will have to shut it down

- Its fast : almost 1 GB/sec while backing up. I didnt remember the time for a restore but it was also over in a few minutes for my system partition of 6 gig.

- Support. The author replies within the next day. What are you going to do if you have a problem with a product produced by bigger companies? I dont want to put them _all_ in a bad light but It gives me a nice feeling that the author himself assists when there is trouble and not some helpdesk redirecting you to a faq.

The author is also working on the possibility to do incremental (or differential) backups too. Once the program can do this I personaly am going to use it as a backup solution instead of considering it as an imaging solution.

Give it a try and be amazed by its simplicity.

[Peter2150]

Hi Buckley

You are right. Drive Snapshot is one of the tools in my arsenal. Tom is johnny on the spot when you need help.

Pete

[richrf]

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to update and summarize my experiences so far.

My configuration is:

Windows XP SP2
Source: Single partition 40GB harddrive with 4GB of data
Target: Western Digital 80GB External USB 2.0


My experiences:

1) Acronis True Image 8 continually hung up my machine so I had to uninstall it.
2) Image for DOS (Terabyte Unlimited) gave me one good validated image on my backup USB 2.0 drive. I was able to read it using TBIView. After I tried performing subsequent images with different names I was never able to validate or TBIView the backup images again. I have performed all taskes recommended by IFD support including chkdsk and memtest. I have to look for another alternative.
3) Tried BootitNG. Was almost able to complete an image after three tries. the last one was 98% done when it failed. I decided it was too unreliable for my simple needs.
4) Tried Drive Snapshot. Gave me an cyclical error when it tried to verify the snapshot.

I think that external USB 2.0 drives are really difficult to use for snapshots. But I will give it a few more tries. On the advice of some other users, I will be trying out Ghost 2003 which comes in the latest Norton Systemworks 2005 pack. Ghost 2003 apparently runs under DOS. As it happens, Staples is selling it with several rebates today. After all the rebates, I am getting it for free (except I am paying $6 shipping) so I thought that if it was for free, I might as well try it out.

Does anyone know if there is a Ghost forum anywhere?

Hope everyone is enjoying their Thanksgiving!

Rich

[nick s]

-{ Quote: "Does anyone know if there is a Ghost forum anywhere?Rich" }-Hi Rich,

Sorry BootIT NG did not work out for you. Here's one Ghost forum: Radified Forums (http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi). Radified also has a popular Ghost 2003 guide: Radified Guide to Norton Ghost (http://ghost.radified.com/ghost_1.htm).

Nick

[richrf]

Hi Nick,

Thanks a lot for the links. There seems to be loads of questions about Ghost also - including the inability to create DOS recovery disks as well as USB discussions. :o This should be fun also. ::) Well, whatever. I'll give it a shot.

Thanks again for all of your help. This has been a trip. ;)

Rich

[nod32_9]

All software have bugs. But if you have similar issues with various imaging software, then you may consider wiping all data (both HDs) and reloading windows. Install the imaging software and retest the system. Often this will fix the issues IF YOU DON'T HAVE A HARDWARE PROBLEM. These software should run well with a VIRGIN copy of windows.

That said, because you ALSO EXPERIENCE problem with a non-windows imaging software, logic tells me that the root cause must originate from your specific hardware configuration.

I keep an an as-loaded image file of WXP Pro SP1 to test for these mysterious problems. Per my previous post, you don't want to pump a lot of data through the USB pipe because USB is not a very stable platform.

[richrf]

Hi nod,

I would say each software product is exhibiting different problems. None seem to be reliable with USB 2.0. I noticed there were some discussions on the Ghost forum regarding USB. My mind is too tired now to work through those posts. I'll wait until I get Ghost and see what happens before diving into the forum. Maybe I will get lucky and just get an easy image copy and that will be that. I really only need one good one that I can rely on. We'll see.

Thanks for the advice.

Rich

[citizenDAK]

Anybody have opinions of the free tools bundled in the Knoppix (or similar) boot CD?

In Knoppix 3.4's "system" folder, there's a Partition Magic clone called QTParted,
and also an item called Partition Image, which I'm guessing is like Drive Image.

P.I. says it's NTFS support is "experimental", which would be a problem for my Win2k & XP machines.


Looks like www.SysRescCd.org also mentions GNU Parted (is like QTParted I guess).

[iain]

I used a Linux "System Rescue" boot CD a few months ago (I think that was the www.SysRescCd.org one). It was the first time I'd used Linux.

It was fiddly to get it to work correctly at first with my USB2 and SATA drives (I had to tinker with BIOS settings by a bit of trial and error), but it performed many great functions for free.

E.g. the partition manager enabled me to set up a dual boot system with ease, with two NTFS partitions. I was VERY glad not to have to buy Partition Magic to do that.

The "drive image"-esque tool was less easy to use - the interface wasn't as friendly, and it indeed only has limited NTFS support (because Micro$oft has copyrighted the NTFS drivers or something). That's one of the reasons I opted for Ghost in the end.

[iain]

p.s. - forgot to say - it IS possible to access and image NTFS drives through the rescue environment, if I remember correctly, but the problem is that you have to extract the NTFS drivers from your Win installation into the Linux RAMdisk, which is rather complicated, because you need to work out the drive and directory numbers and names within the rescue environment.

Even an ardent Myst-player like me was stumped by this in the end. :) (heehee)

[citizenDAK]

I am DEFINATELY more interested in RELIABLE imaging & restore, than I am in finding something "free".

(Anyone willing to summarize the pros/cons of the various packages mentioned in this LONG thread, in a table?)


====================

My co-worker J. just had issues using "PowerQuest Deploy Center 5.5", with SATA, on Win2k sp-4. Creating (fairly small) image of boot partition, onto second partition of same drive.

It failed the verify during creation, when he made a split-file image. (the error message was something like "1831 couldn't find image file"). He tried again without telling the software to split it, and that did verify.


BTW:
Deploy Center is what powerquest renamed "Drive Image Pro", just before symantec bought them out. We paid for an update-subscription, but were very disappointed when there were no updates--or even reduced-price upgrade paths--to one of the V2I generation products.

I agree with others' opinions... Symantec seems not as nice to work with as the companies they bought out were... Norton, PQ, etc...



UPDATE:
J. just re-imaged *without verifying* during creation of the split image files. Thus, no verify-failed error message.
Then he used the image browser to verify the image's integrity, OK. (Is this different than verifying during imaging? Does the verify option do a byte compare of the written image against the source partition, or does it just check for the image's internal consistancy?)
Finally he restored the image successfully.

[citizenDAK]

Symantec says to try using a Win98 boot floppy, instead of Caldera DOS, if you get "Error 1831". Haven't tried that yet on this test partition.

[iain]

With Ghost 9, which I believe uses the same file format as the software your colleague used, the "verification" operation is the same whether included as part of the backup job, or carried out manually later. It tests the internal consistency.

[DARcode]

I've just gone through this whole thread and found many interestign and useful tips, so I'd liek to share my personal experience:

Allow me to point out that in my opinion the only 100% safe way to backup my active system partition is via DOS boot disk(floppy)/disc(CD/DVD) and Ghost 8.2 (from the Symantec Ghost Corporate Edition) has worked flawlessly with both mia VIA SATA RAID 1 array (KT880 + VT8237) and my NVIDIA SATA RAID 1 one (nForce 2) with decent backup and restore times and compression (about 4 mins with and Athlon XP 3200+ and 1 GB of low latency RAM, 3.5 GB partition -> 1.7 GB image).

What's more I've used Nero to create a bootable DVD with Ghost running via floppy emulation that's never failed me.

[DARcode]

Forgot to mention that the boot disk/image I'm using is a standard Windows XP "MS-DOS" (Windows ME command.com in reality) startup disk.

[?SimpleGuy]

Hi, I do not understand why risk important data with imaging products if they are so unreliable.
My goal is simple.
- I want to do a clean install of all critical software on my computer,
make sure no spyware, virus, etc. and create an image of it.
- And nothing else, so I want no background running and eating away of
my resources.

I would prefer to do a simple copy to dvd-r/rw to backup my data.
'If' the system somehow crash later, I can just restore it with the image and copy over my data from the dvd-r/rw.

Can anyone point me the direction to a software that can do that?
Which is best for 9x, Me, 2000, XP?

[?SimpleGuy]

oh, in addition,
it would be best, if the image file created can be burn on a dvd-r/rw and the whole restoration process can be done with that disc alone.

I think this is something like a 'customized rescue disk'. With that, if my harddisk crashed totally, I can buy a new harddisk, pop in the 'rescue disc' and be back in bussiness within an hour.

Oh I tried Ghost 9, with XP NTFS file system.
Image creation, successful.
Image restoration, successful.
System boot, UNsuccessful.
(halt at Window Blue Logo screen)

[nod32_9]

Why not give Bootit NG a try?

[Stro]

One of the big retailers has a Western Digital 250 GB external HD on sale for $180 after rebates. I'm thinking of buying that to backup the two desktop PCs in my home, and two other desktops of family members in the city.

The Western Digital HD comes loaded with Dantz Retrospect Express. Can anyone tell me how Dantz works as a backup program? I've read earlier in this thread that Peter 2150 uses Dantz, but he also said just a few posts down that he uses Drive Snapshot. Why both, Peter?

Anyone know if you can control where Dantz stores the backup file image? I'd like to store an image on the PC's internal HD for convenience (or else I'll purchase Raxco's First Defense) as well as on the Western Digital external HD. But since the Dantz software resides on the external HD, perhaps I'll be limited to storing the backup images only on the external HD.

Anyone know if the Dantz software preloaded onto the Western Digital external HD can be used to back up all four family PCs? This would certainly be less costly than purchasing four individual copies of another backup software product.

My two family PCs both have 160 GB hard drives (each run Win XP), but the most utilized it only 8 GB full at present. The kids got iPods for Christmas and a digital camera will be a near future purchase, so I expect the HDs will fill up a little more.

nod32_9, I printed off the BootIt NG manual and I'm about half way through readiing it. One of my PCs is a Hewlett-Packard. As you probably know, the HP PCs contain a D: partition in which they place the backup copy of the operating system along with all the other junk they bundle with the PC. Will this D: partition cause any problems if I decide on using the BootIt partition creation and resizing functionality?

Thanks all, and regards,
Stro

[Peter2150]

Hi Stro

I use several problems as an overall backup strategy as recovery time is critical to me.

Bear in mind I haven't done any full restore, to my main drive. Just don't want to chance screwing up a good drive.

1. I use Ghost 2003 for imaging. It is slow, but seemingly very reliable. I have restored to an external drive. Note that all images and backups are done to an external firewire drive.

2. I was using Drive Snapshot, but the restore, is to me iffy. I can't get the recovery disk to work on it's own. I have to start with the Ghost disk. Tried a restore to an external drive and it failed. I have given up on it.

3. Use Acronis True Image to do a 2nd Disk image. It is fast, but again I have no way to try a restore of any kind. I do daily incremental images with ATI

4. I use the full version of Dantz Retrospect 6.5. This is not the lite version which is bundled on the WDC drives. This is not an imaging program but a backup program. I have two backup sets with Dantz. One is the full disk, the other is just my MYDOC's area. I do incremental backups of my full disk daily, and the mydocs hourly. A full disk backup initially takes me about 35 minutes. The daily updates take 5 minutes. The mydoc backups take less then a minute.

Note that like true image with dantz you can select a time frame to which you can restore the computer

Dantz also has a Disaster Recovery CD which you can make. It is a bit of a convoluted procedure and I don't have the warmest of fuzzies about it.

My recovery strategy:

1. If my system is trashed, corrupted etc, but my disk is okay, then I first turn to First Defense for recovery, and it has worked flawlessly.

2. If my hard drive fails then:

a) I would first try the current Acronis True image file. If it works I am done. If it didn't work then....

b) I would restore my ghost image which could be up to a month old. If that gets my system up, I would then use Dantz to bring the system current.
If ghost should fail me then I would fall back to....

c) I would have to use Dantz. To do this without their recovery CD, I would first install my Recovery CD that came with the computer. Then I would install SP2 from CD. Next install Retrospect, and do a full disk restore from Retrospect which would put the computer back up to date.

Long post, hope it helps.

Pete

[Stro]

Peter2150, thanks so much for the informative reply.

Having been saved by GoBack several times in the past, I do plan on purchasing Raxco's First Defense, unless of course the imaging software I finally purchase can save images on the internal hard drive as well as on the external HD.

You say you have the full version of Dantz Retrospect 6.5, not the lite "Express" version that comes bundled with Western Digital external HDs. So where does your Dantz software reside? On your PC's internal HD or on your firewire external HD? Do you have insight on whether I could save Dantz created backup files on my PC's internal HD given that Dantz Retrospect Express software is preloaded on the external Western Digital drive I'm considering buying?

You clarified in your post that Dantz is a backup program, not an imaging program. I must admit to not understanding the difference between backup and imaging programs. If Dantz will backup everything on your hard drive (and let's assume you don't partition your HD, which I know you don't, Peter) then if your PC's internal HD totally fails, why can't you simply restore everything (OS, application software, data files, music files, etc) from the Dantz backup file sitting on your external HD to you new, virgin internal HD?

I also don't understand the concept of the Dantz Disaster Recovery CD. Assuming you have up-to-date Dantz backup files on an external HD that can be used to restore your internal HD, then what is the Disaster Recovery CD used for?

Also, since you perform an incremental full disk backup daily using Dantz to your external HD, can't you use the Dantz backup to fix the problems you currently fix using First Defense? Why buy First Defense if the Dantz backup can fix the same problems? Clue me in on what I'm missing here.

Finally, you say your initial Dantz full disk backup took 35 minutes with daily incremental backups now taking 5 minutes. How many GB are you talking about?

Thanks again, Peter.
Regards,
Stro

[Peter2150]

Hi Stro

I'll take the easy question first. My c: drive is a total of 18 Gigs.

Full backups from scratch take:

Ghost 2003 41 minutes (without verify)
Acronis TI 8 11 minutes (without verify)
Retrospect 35 minutes (with verify)

Okay lets see. First of all Dantz's retrospect doesn't come preinstalled on the Western Digital Firewire Drives(I have two of them). It comes on the software disk that has the drivers etc. You install it on your PC like any other software, so in general it resides on your c: drive

Note that Ghost and TI are imaging programs, they just image whats on the drive whereas a backup program is file and folder based. (very simplified). I originally chose Bounceback as a backup program and when it conflicted with First Defense, I did a competitive upgrade to the full retrospect. Also I believe the OEM version which comes with the drives is minus a few features, one of which is the disaster recovery. At that time I didn't know how disaster recovery worked.

Next why First Defense when you are right that in theory I could just do a restore from Retrospect. One thing you can do with First Defense you can't do with any of the others is you can boot into the other snapshots and work in them like you are in your regular system. For example I wanted to try some demo software so I booted to my secondary snapshot. These demo's downloaded all kinds of ActiveX and Java stuff. Uninstalling is always an issue. Yes I could have done this and then restored my disk with Retrospect, BUT if for some reason this software trashed my system(has happened), then i would be facing the same recovery scenario as if my disk had failed. With First Defense I just boot back to my primary, do a quick copy to restore my secondary and I am done.

Now to disaster recovery. Assuming your hard disk crashed and has been replaced, and that all your backup/images are on your external drive:

Ghost boots with a recovery floppy/CD using DOS. Then the DOS version of Ghost allows you to restore from your external drive image, back to your new drive, putting it back as it was when you imaged.

True Image does the same thing only the recovery floppy/CD uses Linux. Has TRue image version on the floppy/CD and essentially works the same as Ghost in that respect.

Retrospect is different. You make a Disaster Recovery CD using your Windows CD and it's serial number, and also a current backup saveset. Note if your windows only has SP1 and you are currently using SP2, then you have to slipstream SP2 into the CD. When you boot from this CD it installs a temporary version of windows, does the Restore of the disk, and then deletes the temporary version. I just wasn't that comfortable with all this.

Something else I do is keep a copy of all the purchased software I have downloaded separately on my external drives. That way if I need to I can reinstall retrospect.

Finally retrospect builds catalog files of the savesets as you run incrementals. These catalog files are stored on the c: drive. They can be rebuilt but it is time consuming so I also copy them separately to my external drives.

Hope this helps, and makes sense.

Pete

Note some of this redunancy might not be necessary. I do it because my PC is mission critical to several business functions I am involved in.

[Stro]

Peter, thanks again for investing so much of your time to reply to me.

I understand now the difference in image software vs backup software. I'm reading the user manuals for BootIt and Image for DOS and I'll probably use one of those image programs, supplemented by Dantz Retrospect Express.

And thanks for the additional information on what you can do with First Defense...I didn't know. That information makes the software even more attractive.

Your First Defense paragraph did bring up a question, though. I know FD makes uncompressed snapshots of your C: partition, which in your case is your entire hard drive. And you have two FD snapshots sitting on your hard drive (primary & secondary snapshots, am I correct? I'm not familiar with FD terminology.). So when you say you have 18 GB on your hard drive, what are you talking about? Are you referring to all the GBs occupied by FD snapshots as well? Your Ghost and True Image software then has to image not only your native C: drive contents, but each uncompressed FD snapshot as well.

I agree the Dantz disaster recovery procedure does sound confusing. I wouldn't know how to slipstream in SP2, and my Hewlett-Packard PC didn't come with a Windows XP CD anyway (HP puts the backup copy of the OS in the D: partition). I'm leaving the Dantz disaster recovery system alone! Shouldn't need it if I image frequently enough.

One more question. Why do you keep a copy of purchased, downloaded software separately on your external HD? Since you have it copied already in First Defense, and are imaging it daily with Acronis TI, then why the separate external HD copy? Or, is this part of the redundant backup systems for mission critical restoration strategy?

Thanks again,
Stro

[Peter2150]

Hi Stro

Thought I'd answered you, but apparently it didn't post. Will redo later.

Pete

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "
Your First Defense paragraph did bring up a question, though. I know FD makes uncompressed snapshots of your C: partition, which in your case is your entire hard drive. And you have two FD snapshots sitting on your hard drive (primary & secondary snapshots, am I correct? I'm not familiar with FD terminology.). So when you say you have 18 GB on your hard drive, what are you talking about? Are you referring to all the GBs occupied by FD snapshots as well? Your Ghost and True Image software then has to image not only your native C: drive contents, but each uncompressed FD snapshot as well.

<snip>

One more question. Why do you keep a copy of purchased, downloaded software separately on your external HD? Since you have it copied already in First Defense, and are imaging it daily with Acronis TI, then why the separate external HD copy? Or, is this part of the redundant backup systems for mission critical restoration strategy?

Thanks again,
Stro" }-

The 18Gb is everything on the disk. Includes all First Defense snapshots. I did some timing and it is quick just to image everything then to remove my one snapshot image and then rebuild the snapshot. Plus if you did remove the snapshot then the incrementals would include the rebuilt snapshot.

I keep the purchase software separately because if both images failed and I had to rely totally on retrospect, you need it installed to restore. Retrospect stores the data in a compressed format, and you need the installed program to recover it. Ergo I keep all my software store externally in addition to having it in the backups. I also manually move the catalog files from the hard drive to the externals for the same reason.

Pete

[dogriley]

I have just spent a bunch of time fighting with Symatec's Ghost. Version 9 and version 2003. I have used this product in the past (many years ago) with sucess. However for my particular hardware Ghost would not work.

Beyond the product not working for duplicating drives, it went a step further and caused the loss of the entire drive, 3 times. Ghost mucks with the hard drive partitiion table, it uses it's own utilities to do this. And when the process failed it instructed me to use ghreboot, and or gdisk to repair the partitioning to get back to windows. These tools did not work. I found some info through google about others with same problem, and suggestions about booting from diskette or CD, neither helped.

I finally broke down and called tech support. 4 hours on hold (not an exaggeration) and I get a guy in India, he reads me the support article from symantec's web site ( in the 4 hours of waiting I had read and tried all of the fixes on their site) when these methods were not successful (a second time) he let me know that I would have to contact my PC manufacturer to have them help me re-image and re-install windows onto my hard drive.

I asked to speak with a higher level tech support person, maybe someone that could provide insight into the undocumented untilties ghreboot or gdisk and was told no one could help.

Luckly the machines we were working on were not full of impoortant data, just basic installs in a test environment, so I didn't lose any important information.

However, I tried Acronis TrueImage, and the Eval copy worked like a charm. No problems, no hassles, and fast.

Seems like a simple choice for me, a product that works for me over one that doesn't.

Your mileage may vary, the machine I was using is not a 'standard' pc it is a small profile motherboard used for industiral computers, and I have to believe ghost must work on some computers, but would still recomend True Image over Ghost based on my very recent and very painful experiences.

[nod32_9]

Also checkout my posts about Bootit NG. It is a more robust imaging software. You also get a partition manager and boot loader for only $35. You can try the fully functional software for 30 days.

Stay away from SYMANTEC and you will save a lot of time and $.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=346075#post346075

[phasechange]

Does anyone have experience of the Paragon products such as Hard Disk Manager, Drive Backup, and Partition Manager?

http://www.paragon.ag/hdm/

http://www.drive-backup.com/

[DougR]

This is my long-winded experience with Ghost 9.

I've been having both a great time and horrible time with Ghost 9 for a solid week. I've been trying to Ghost three different winxp home pcs. I've come to the conclusing that there's no consistency on how Ghost 9 is going to work on anyone's given setup. Here's my feedback, tips, whatever you want to call it. Check this out........

I bought Ghost 9 and downloaded it from Symantec a couple of weeks ago. Unzipped it to the image file they send you. From there I burned about five copies of the cd with recordnow (as suggested by Symantec). Ok, I've got backup cds of the program and of course they're each bootable because that's the way the program is made. Just in case, I also saved the zip in case I ever have to make more program cds for myself. And, my one serial number works for every pc installation. Type in the serial, the program activates.

PC 1......a successful ghosting..eventually. I install Ghost on the first pc, a Compaq Presario p4 2.8. That machine has oem winxp which was originally full of the typical junk programs and apps that Compaq sends preloaded...which I had cleared off a few months ago. It's also one of those oem's that does NOT use a separate recovery partion for itself.

Anyway, I Ghosted that drive by choosing the "backup drive" option in the program, chose one of my hooked up dvd burners as the destination (an external Sony Drx500), chose the "single drive backup" option and away it went. About a half hour later, I had a finished dvd backup of the system on a dvd-r.

Now I turn the system off, stick in a brand new 80 gb WD drive that I partitioned and formatted (as a new storage drive...no os) with the WD tools utility (on another pc). Fresh new drive, no os.

Hour-long sidetrack #1...I pulled out the Presario c drive that I had just Ghosted, stuck in the new hard drive.....hooked up one of my old internal IDE nec burners for the restore (cuz I found out after four hours of trying that no matter what..THIS Ghost 9 on THIS system, refused to see any external usb drives during restore.....ok the best workaround was to simply put an internal dvd burner on one of the ide cables and, voila...the Ghost "advanced recovery of an entire drive" saw the internal dvd burner, saw my backup data.......and proceeded to restore my old c drive to the new 80 gb drive.

For restore options, I chose, "verify errors after restore", "restore mbr", "make drive bootable".

Hour-long sidetrack #2....I found out is that Symantec has the WRONG instructions on a couple of crucial steps...or at least they worked WRONG for this machine...First of all, at the start of the recovery stage, there is a point where you have the program disk in and are prompted to "browse" to where the backup data is. Of course, the backup data is on a different dvd/cd than the program. No biggie...BUT, the instructions say to put in your data cd/dvd before you hit the "browse" button. WRONG. You have to hit "browse" WHILE the program cd is still in there because it's gonna look for some additional program info before it actually starts "browsing". If you take the program cd out when Symantec tells you, guess what? The whole program hangs and you have to reboot the whole pc back from the program cd again and start over. Bottom line after an hour of messing around is that I figured out to hit "browse" with the program cd in and THEN, after the next browse window comes up..take the program cd out and stick in my data dvd. And even then, it takes a few seconds for the program to re-situate itself to give me a directory of the backup image on the dvd.

Hour-long sidetrack #3 .....On backup data spanned across several cds or dvds, the restore program will prompt you to put the next cd/dvd in. Just be careful that when you put the next cd/dvd in DON'T close the tray. i found out after three hours of failed restore attempts that when you put the next cd/dvd in, just click "ok" on the program and let IT close the tray. Otherwise, guess what? You close the tray manually, click ok, and the program gets all screwed up and says you put in the wrong cd/dvd. Guess what again? You have to exit the restore program and start all over. Is this documented anywhere? Nope.

I essentially blew a half a day ghosting and restoring the Presario, but at least I had some procedure notes for myself and the new drive did boot up just fine with everything completely intact.

Now..Iwanted to have a third hard drive ready to go for the Presario...a drive that wouldn't have any online stuff etc. So, with the experience I had, I took out the newly Ghosted 80gb drive and proceeded to do the whole procedure again with another new 80gb drive. This procedure went smooth. Install the newly formatted drive, boot the Presario from the Ghost 9 cd, and restore the data dvd following MY procedures developed from the previous try.

Worked perfect. Had the whole thing done in less than an hour or two. I can now put any of the three drives in the Presario (one at a time of course) and pc/ winxp boots fine, all my programs work fine, and each drive consists of a slightly different layout of stuff. And to be safe, I installed Ghost on each of those two new drives after I had them set up and Ghosted those setups for if/when those drives crash in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------

NOW...hey I'm feeling pretty good about the procedure so I turn to my HP P4 and intend to do the very exact same thing, only this time with a fresh standalone version of Winxp that I bought at Staples. This version comes already mounted with SP1.

I install the standalone win xp. Upgrade the security stuff but not to SP2. I install Ghost 9. I backup to my external dvd burner again. Set Backup to verify. Verifies as a-ok.

Stick in a new hard drive to the HP, start the "restore" program of Ghost 9 to see if it sees my external Sony burner (Once again...NOPE, it doesn't...even though the Symantec site and Gear site specifically list this burner as supported). No biggie. I already KNOW the workaround. I hook up the internal nec burner to the Hp, start up the Ghost restore, and everything whirls by.

At the end of the restore to the new drive, I take out the Ghost cd, and reboot the pc, expecting it to come up just like the Presario did.

Ehh..wrong answer. Pc won't boot. After days of experimenting my final results are either messages about hardware not reading boot correctly, or simply a hanging dos cursor blinker at boot....SO....

4 day long sidetrack #1...to date, I can not restore Ghost backup images to the HP no matter what I try. I can put a Ghosted hp drive into the d drive slot of any other pc in here and visually see that the program folders that Ghost put on the new drive are all there. They all look to be intact. But the drive(s) (I've now tried this on two brand new drives on the HP will not boot.
You can give all sorts of opinions, but I probably already tried them after long, boring reading about Ghost problems. I've tried all of the following so far on this pc........

Backup using different backup media/burners (I have three different brand dvd/cd burners and plenty of various media). Tried them all.

...Load the HP oem winxp on the pc and try Ghosting that kind of system setup (as had worked fine with the Presario)

Do another fresh install of standalone xp and then upgrade to SP2 and try to Ghost.

Format the new drives to all zeros with killdisk and then re-partition.....or don't partition......format via winxp internal drive setup routine..format with WD data tools.

Use Ghost's "disk copy" feature instead of first ghosting.

Ghost the image to a second hard drive in the system instead of dvd and then try a recovery of that image to a newly formatted drive.

Use "restore mbr" on recovery. Don't use "restore mbr"...I've tried both ways.

Use "disk signature". Don't use disk signature. Tried both.

Tried to do the whole thing with WD, Maxtor, and Seagate drives.

tried every different which-way bios boot setting.

Everything above........tried them all.

About the only thing I haven't gotten into yet is this third party routine called BootItNg that somehow rewrites or resets the disk signature...which Ghost 9 is supposed to do automatically.......and apparently did do okay with on those earlier reinstalls on the Presario. Maybe I'll look at that, maybe not.

-----------

One last thing I tried. I went back to the Presario for a test. I bought another wd drive this weekend (they're so inexpensive now) and formatted it yesterday using the wd tools (as a storage drive, no os).

I stuck this drive in the Presario, pulled out my standalone WinXP box and did a fresh install of that XP on the Presario (the previous successful ghosting on the Presario was with Compaq oem Winxp). After installing the standalone winxp, (and having to call Microsoft on the phone to get the code for activating it) I updated the security stuff, updated to service pak 2 (as I had done on the HP), installed Ghost, and did a backup of the entire drive.

I then immediately erased the new drive (cuz I didn't have any more empty drives around to play with). I wrote the drive with zeros with killdisk and then reformatted it again to empty it all out (yeah I know this is all taking a lot of time). Then, with the new drive empty again, I recovered the drive on the Presario, using the same setup I've used for all these tests.

Worked fine. The drive, created from the Ghost, boots up fine on the Presario. Everything's intact.

Ghost loves the p4 Presario and all flavors of software. Ghost does not like it's HP cousin. Of course that's just here in my house. I have the feeling every problem out there regarding Ghost is a result of often un-traceable and unrepeatable issues.
---------------------

I have concluded that it doesn't matter whether one is trying to ghost a standalone Winxp or an oem xp. It doesn't matter whether or not SP2 is involved. There are just some pieces of equipment that Ghost 9 is not going to successfully restore on. IF YOU HAVE FURTHER OPINIONS/INPUT, I'D SURE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

As you can tell if you've read all this, I could have done fresh reinstalls and manual tweaking of a bunch of drives faster than trying to figure out Ghost 9.

Until I get better info, I'll probably do just that. Use Ghost on the Presario and simply have a couple of extra system drives (manually set up) around for the eventual inevitable crashes. And continue to keep my data backed up on dvd and not lose track of where all my program cd's are kept.

Needless to say, I've not even attempted to deal with any of this on the third HP pc that's here.

[Westair]

I am running a MSI MS-6570E motherboard with an onboard nVidia SATA RAID controller. I am running a RAID 0 configuration with to WD 120GB SATA drives. True Image 8.0 boot disk does NOT support this RAID controller in the RAID 0 configuration.

[Spitting Image]

Hi Westair,

I'm using an MSI board with an nForce3 250GB chipset. I have two SATA Raptors in RAID 0 (NVRAID), so we have similar setups. TrueImage will not work with NVRAID. Let me repeat that---TrueImage will not work with NVRAID! ATI may allow you to create an image of your RAID array, but it will not restore that image. I used TrueImage to restore an image I had made with the 'Safe' Boot CD and ended up with the following:
1) Loss of C:\
2) Loss of D:\, a data partition that I wasn't even trying to restore
3) Loss of 300MB of data, mostly MP3s that I can slowly recover. My CD backups had all my very important docs, thank goodness.
4) Loss of my RAID 0 array entirely

Needless to say, I immediately began looking for another imaging program. I thought of using Ghost 9, but its compatibility with RAID was unsure. It also requires .NET framework and activation; besides, it's huge and it's made by Symantec.

I finally tried TeraByte Unlimited's Image For Windows and DOS and I couldn't be more pleased. It worked flawlessly in creating and restoring images in NVRAID, both OS and data partitions. IFW has a small 2MB footprint and the GUI is very simple---no bells 'n ' whistles like TrueImage. But unlike TrueImage, it can restore images to NVRAID. TeraByte Unlimited offers a full-featured 30-day trial version and bundles Image For Windows and Image For DOS for $27US. Money well spent considering that Acronis TrueImage doesn't work and costs at least $40US.

Regards
Spitting Image

[nod32_9]

Bootit NG (from the same vendor) is more powerful and robust. However, if IFW/IFD works for you, then there is not need to switch.

Let me repeat, DO NOT touch bloated PIGWARE like GHOST, and TRUE IMAGE.

[NOD32 user]

-{ Quote: "Hey, can I throw in Roxio's GoBack 3 into the mix? I use it and i like it well enough. I can't say about Ghost thogh, they can't run at the same time. Ghost doesn't need CDs ... it takes over your MBR (so say byebye to autobooting into linux - you'll always need a boot disk). Any thoughts?
Of Course, Norton has bought it also, and I think it ships with certain versions of Norton System Works 2004, quite like Ghost." }-
Used an earlier propriety 'GateWay' version of GoBack in the past and loved it.

Ghost2003 also supported NTFS. I'm yet to trial it, but I understood Ghost2003 was able to do hardware RAID and SATA etc. so long as you included the appropriate (possibly DOS?) drivers in your Ghost2003 boot config.

-{ Quote: "Does anyone have experience of the Paragon products such as Hard Disk Manager, Drive Backup, and Partition Manager?

http://www.paragon.ag/hdm/

http://www.drive-backup.com/" }-

It's possible that the programmer responsible is no longer with Paragon, but I moved away from them entirely after a client pointed out to me that inside the CD images from one of their products were embeded phrases like 'angel of death'

[frodiggs]

wow, very interesting thread. my head is dizzy after 9 pages.

I have one failing drive on a raid 0 array on a nforce2 board (silicon image 3112 chipset) w/ 32k block and 32k cluster partitioned C/D. I was close to getting TI8 but i hear ye- nay on this product.

It seems i just need to try the trials and see what works.

two quick questions:

1. has anyone had TI8 succesfully work with this environment.
2. in my case, i'd be introducing a new unformatted drive to an existing array. Is it best to recreate array (32k block), format it (32k cluster), partition it THEN proceed to restore with TI8 or IFW/IFD OR can the software format and partition the array from my state (one drive with data, one drive new)

[crockett]

Hi;)

Just to clarify...

Something I've read (but can't remember where exactly in posts), and which has also been widely spread, is that Drive Image 2002 wouldn't work on WXP

One thing is for sure: it DOES work perfectly well on XPSP1Family.

Couldn't get it to work on WXPSP2 at a friend's house couple of hours ago, though. But the floppies did the trick anyway.

Don't know about XPPro versions, but I suspect anything else than XPSP2 runs DI 2002 perfectly well, also when launched directly from Windows.

Rgds, Crockett 8)

[crockett]

A quote from Re: Drive Image 2002- will it work w/XP PRO?
(see http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=58700 )

-{ Quote: "Gal, this gets complicated. As I understand it: Yes, 2002 will work with XP if you can get it to install. The original 2002 disks would install on XP machines. When DI7 came unto the scene, it then became the recommend version for XP (according to the company) and both disks starting shipping together for the price of one. I have read that the company made the later 2002 disks so that they would not install on an XP machine, but I have no firm confirmation of this. But to make a long story short, yes, I know of many folks who are using 2002 on XP.

Acadia" }-
Found it... and confirming.

Well, to make a long story short from a couple of tests I conducted several weeks ago and anew today: In my experience, DI2002 works flawlessly on XPSP1. If upgrading to SP2, continues to work. BUT installing directly on SP2 spells trouble...

Sorry if this may seem like already heard, but DI2002 is such a revert software (and deservedly so) that I thought it might be of some interest to restate the conclusion.

Is Powerquest continuing software activities other than Drive Image (since DI has been sold to Symantec), or did the company sell all the other products too (Partition Magic, etc.) ?

Rgds, Crockett 8)

[Anthony Ieronimo]

From what I can tell, only TrueImage lets you make incremental backups to CDs. It seems that Ghost 9 allows incremental backups only to a hard drive. With Ghost 9, you can make a full backup to CD, but not an incremental backup (unless you can stand the inconvenience of sending each incremental backup to the hard drive first and then burning it manually to CD). It seems to me that Ghost 9 has a major limitation in this respect, and that TrueImage is therefore the better program.

Also, a minor point is that Ghost 9 requires an external drive to be turned on during the system boot -- or else the drive won't be recognized. For TrueImage, it does not seem that a boot with the drive turned on is needed.

At any rate, TrueImage seems to provide a smoother ride all around compared to Ghost 9. But TrueImage's ability to make incremental backups to CDs is its strongest advantage over Ghost.

[onclejean]

In Windows XP Pro I used Drive Image 7 which became Ghost 9 and it worked well until I installed SP2 when I could not longer use it.
Then I switched to Acronis Ture Image 8 and it has worked fine for my sytem which has both SATA and IDE drives. Image backups of about 16 GB take about 20 minutes to make and double that time to restore.
The clone facility is very neat, starting in Windows, auto shutting down Windows to do some work in a DOS environemnet and the auto restarting Windows using the clone as the system disk. The original disk can be reenabled in Windows Disk Management if the clone is to be used as a backup disk.

[ImageVisitor]

-{ Quote: "It seems to me that Ghost 9 has a major limitation in this respect, and that TrueImage is therefore the better program.
At any rate, TrueImage seems to provide a smoother ride all around compared to Ghost 9. But TrueImage's ability to make incremental backups to CDs is its strongest advantage over Ghost." }-
Hi ;)

What do you think about Acronis's speed at restoring? I always found it rather slow compared to Ghost and Drive Image.... Several times slower, actually.

Curious to hear your experience and opinion about it...

I still happily use Drive Image 2002 on SP2 ;)

Thanks
Cheers

[budfox]

I tired using ghost w/ a raid 0 config.....and big surprise, ghost doesnt support raid. Tried trueimage w/ a maxtor USB backup dirve and have had no problems. Supports raid and the USB drive. I have had to reimage the drive twice and both have run perfectly.

I have found it best that if the label says Norton, stay the hell away.

[onclejean]

-{ Quote: "Hi ;)

What do you think about Acronis's speed at restoring? I always found it rather slow compared to Ghost and Drive Image.... Several times slower, actually.

Curious to hear your experience and opinion about it...

I still happily use Drive Image 2002 on SP2 ;)

Thanks
Cheers" }-
I cannot compare because DI2 will not work in Windows XP Pro with SP2. Compared with Ghost 9, which is not reliable, True image 8 is much faster

[ImageVisitor]

Hi; Thanks

I run XP Family, so I couldn't tell about XPPro

The way I'm still able to use 2002 on SP2 is because I installed it on SP1 and then (and only then) I upgraded to SP2. I agree installing DI2002 on SP2 wouldn't do.

Whatever the software, this imaging thing is quite an amazingly useful concept - it changed my computer experience ! I bet it changed yours, too :)

Rgds

[alkjdlfja]

The Novell ZENworks Imager works really well.

You will need a Netware server though for versions 4 though 6. I think 3.2 might work without a server from a ZEN boot CD, and it should be okay for saving since it will restore.

As for NTFS, I don't know about Zen Imaging 3.2. I can tell you version 4 and 6 work perfect. You do have to create a partition and format it fat32 or ntfs then you can restore whatever you want too it.


A free program I really like a lot is partimage for Linux. It has experimental NTFS support, which always works for me. If it makes the image it can almost certainly restore the image. It takes a bit of practice to use this product unfortunatly it is not for the layman. You must specifiy the type of compression, comments... how you want to split files...

Only saves used sectors. Free Space not backed up!

You obviously need Linux or a Live Boot CD (perfect for restores)

What PartImage does not do is save your partition table or Master Boot Record.

You can ofcource do somthing like:

dd if=/dev/hda of=hda.mbr count=1 bs=512

The above will save the first 512 bytes of your hard disk, which typically is your physical partitions and other necessary data.

BAsically the line above says do a raw read/write
Read the first 512 bytes from the Primary IDE drive and save it to a file called hda.mbr in the current working directory.

Obviously, you will need an ext3 partition to save this file or an image too.


YOu can then do something like this:

sfdisk -d /dev/hda > partitions.hda

Save a text file with all the partition information in it to a file called partitions.hda in the current working directory.


To restore, all you have to do is dump the MBR to the hard disk, dump the partition table, then use partimage to restore the image.

I actually scripted the dumping of the mbr...

[budfox]

In terms of speed, It takes me 1:30 hours to do a full restore. I am using a Maxtor USB 2.0 drive...I am sure I could cut off a few mins w/ Firewire, but for me an hour and a half isnt bad considering that to do a full reinstall used to take me about a full day.

I cannot stress enough how worth it to invest in a external drive and some backup software!!

[Loul]

I'm back guys :)

I'm now considering a slightly different task : hard disk cloning.

You would think most image proggies would do this by default but no (I mean directly not restoring from a third HD to the one you want to clone to).

So what proggie would you recommend for that precise task (would be best if it could work to a a USB2/Firewire external HD).

Thanks

[onclejean]

I recomend Acronis True Image v 8. You can make the clone in Windows and Acronis will then shutdown Windows and modify the boot.ini in the clone so that becomes the new system disk.

Then Acronis boots you back into Windows. When Windows is loaded you are finished with Acronis. From the Desktop GO
Start\Adminatrative Tools\Computer Management\Disk Management\
You will see your clone as the system disk and the old system disk as not in use. With Disk Management you can enable the old system disk and modify its properties to suit your purpose, either to keep it in use or, remove one or other disk when you next shut down Windows.