Norton 9 + Ghost 2003

[ZerO]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I know Norton 9 comes with ghost 2003

but are the images produced from each compatible or should i think
of them as 2 very different products / formats ?

is it possible to go DOS ghost 2003 an load N9 images and vice versa ?

wondering as norton 9 is based on powerquest software - drive image i think
and i had problem with earlier versions of that
and presently use ghost 2003 with no probs


thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Personally, if live backups aren't absolutely needed, I'd use only Ghost
2003 to backup offline. After all, how is 9 going to know which file
version to backup during a live backup?!? The one written to disk last
second, the one written to memory this second, or the one the very next
second for all of the files open on the HD and in use?!?

(ie. if you're writing something to disk, at what point in the partial
save does it backup live!?! 1/3rd of a long paper, 1/2way into the
paper, the latter 3/4 of the paper?!?)

It's just a disaster waiting to happen!

(Not to say you can't make a good working backup live - only that it can
result in problems later with mutliple files open on the system.)

---

Besides, Ghost 2003 has been extremely 100% reliable here, and has never
failed in a restore from a verified backup, and the prior DOS versions
have been very solid products.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

zero <zeroandrewREMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105658702.25835.0@damia.uk.clara.net...

> I know Norton 9 comes with ghost 2003

> but are the images produced from each compatible

Yep, thats one of the main pluses with ghost 9.
Compatible with Drive Image images too.

> or should i think of them as 2 very different products / formats ?

Not at the image file level.

> is it possible to go DOS ghost 2003 an load N9 images

Not always, particularly with incremental backups.

> and vice versa ?

Yes, 9 will restore and inspect 2003 images, and Drive Image images too.

> wondering as norton 9 is based on powerquest software - drive image i think

Its more based on V2i Protector in many ways, particularly
the incremental backups done live from Win 2K and XP etc.

> and i had problem with earlier versions of that
> and presently use ghost 2003 with no probs

Should be fine. I cant see you'd ever need to restore an incremental
backup done with 9 by using the ghost 2003 dos boot, you can boot
the 9 rescue CD instead and it uses Win PE basically for similar
functionality with better support for USB drives etc and lans.

The other one worth considering now is TrueImage.

I didnt like it much until 8, too crude for my taste. 8 has fixed all
the cruditys I didnt like, and is actually less buggy than ghost 9.

Its better in the sense that you can boot the rescue CD and do
an image creation over the lan from that, handy if you want to
do a safety image of a system you are about to work on etc.
Ghost 9 cant do that, you have to install it on the system you
are going to image and thats undesirable if in for repair etc.

But I've just discovered that I cant boot it on the most primitive PC tho,
the dinosaur in the kitchen that I backup over the lan to the main PCs.
That might be something readily fixable tho. I basically get a brief flash
of what I should see on the screen, with pronounced vertical lines on it.
That comes back with mouse movement and the shift key, but only
briefly, its never actually usable. Pretty basic C400 with an S3 video
card which runs TrueImage installed fine. Creates an image fine too.

Interesting comment on the way its implemented tho, I was trying
a test restore of the full hard drive, and it obviously asks if it can
delete the contents of that drive before restoring. I confirmed that,
had it reboot to actually do the restore, found it wouldnt run, and
find that it hadnt actually deleted anything yet, so its just a nuisance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In my opinion, one should not do incremental backups of OS partitions
to start with. Incremental backups of data partitions are fine.
Incremental partitions of apps partitions may be OK. But not OS
partitions. They are so complicated, so intricately entwined, I think
the whole partition should be backed up each time. That way, when you
have to restore, you get immediately back to a coherent state that is
known to work. And with modern equipment, it doesn't even take that
long. With Ghost 2003 floppies, a USB2 port and an external HD, it
takes me 7 minutes to back up a 15 GB OS partition that has 5 GB full.

So, don't rely on incremental OS backups. Back it up full every time.
And keep your data on a separate partition, and back that up any way
you want. Just my opinion.

Irwin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Well, maybe that came across a little dogmatic. If one wants to do
incremental imaging of the OS partition to capture the occasional file
that ends up on the desktop or in My Documents, then fine. But don't
rely on it to restore the system. There, that is more diplomatic.

IMF

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:cs786b$ktd$1@news.service.uci.edu...

> Personally, if live backups aren't absolutely needed, I'd use only Ghost 2003
> to backup offline. After all, how is 9 going to know which file version to
> backup during a live backup?!? The one written to disk last second, the one
> written to memory this second, or the one the very next second for all of the
> files open on the HD and in use?!?

> (ie. if you're writing something to disk, at what point in the partial save
> does it backup live!?! 1/3rd of a long paper, 1/2way into the paper, the
> latter 3/4 of the paper?!?)

> It's just a disaster waiting to happen!

Cant agree with that at all. One obvious advantage with
9 is the INCREMENTAL backup which 2003 doesnt have.

If you want to avoid the potential problem with the file
versions you mentioned, it makes a lot more sense to
just ensure that the system isnt doing anything when
you do the last incremental backup rather than running
2003 with its much longer time to do the backup.

Particularly with safety backups done before
installing something or doing an update etc.

Even if you do nothing much useful during the backup,
you can at least play a game or some music etc.

> (Not to say you can't make a good working backup live - only that it can
> result in problems later with mutliple files open on the system.)

Sure, but using 2003 isnt the only way to avoid that potential risk.

> Besides, Ghost 2003 has been extremely 100% reliable here, and has never
> failed in a restore from a verified backup, and the prior DOS versions have
> been very solid products.

Sure, but its main downside is that it takes a lot longer to do
a safety backup before installing something etc and that does
mean that you sometimes choose to take the risk and dont bother.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> Cant agree with that at all. One obvious advantage with
> 9 is the INCREMENTAL backup which 2003 doesnt have.

True.

> If you want to avoid the potential problem with the file
> versions you mentioned, it makes a lot more sense to
> just ensure that the system isnt doing anything when
> you do the last incremental backup rather than running
> 2003 with its much longer time to do the backup.

Just how do you tell Windows not to do ANYTHING at all?!? There is
no command, switch, program or what not from Microsoft or any 3rd party
in existance that will do this.

(we're not talking about killing just the programs under Task Manager
here - that won't stop 100% of all disk operations for sure.)

> Sure, but its main downside is that it takes a lot longer to do
> a safety backup before installing something etc and that does
> mean that you sometimes choose to take the risk and dont bother.

I don't know how long it takes over there, but with a 10GB c: drive,
it can be backed up to a DVD-R in a dozen minutes or so; a second HD in
minutes flat (as fast as the IDE bus can push data).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

SNIP

You could always use the SafeTry Mode of Norton GoBack 4.0. This requires a
reboot before installing or changing something, but if you decide to keep
your changes, then you tell GoBack that and you carry on as normal. If you
reject the changes, then another reboot is required.

> Sure, but its main downside is that it takes a lot longer to do
> a safety backup before installing something etc and that does
> mean that you sometimes choose to take the risk and dont bother.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I basically prefer to have that capability integrated with the
full backup. In other words I backup fully anyway, and its
handy to be able to update the backup just before installing
or updating as quickly as possible to minimise the likelyhood
that you'll risk it.

"Piers James" <nospan-p13rs.xray.jam3s@v1rg1n.ten-nospam> wrote in message
news:%gUFd.692$TT5.668@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> SNIP
>
> You could always use the SafeTry Mode of Norton GoBack 4.0. This requires a
> reboot before installing or changing something, but if you decide to keep your
> changes, then you tell GoBack that and you carry on as normal. If you reject
> the changes, then another reboot is required.
>
>> Sure, but its main downside is that it takes a lot longer to do
>> a safety backup before installing something etc and that does
>> mean that you sometimes choose to take the risk and dont bother.
>>
>
>

 

[ZerO]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

thanks for all the responses

i agree with rod (i think !) full backups i can handle

incremental , well . . .



"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34qn7eF4f0qd0U1@individual.net...
> I basically prefer to have that capability integrated with the
> full backup. In other words I backup fully anyway, and its
> handy to be able to update the backup just before installing
> or updating as quickly as possible to minimise the likelyhood
> that you'll risk it.
>
> "Piers James" <nospan-p13rs.xray.jam3s@v1rg1n.ten-nospam> wrote in message
> news:%gUFd.692$TT5.668@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> > SNIP
> >
> > You could always use the SafeTry Mode of Norton GoBack 4.0. This
requires a
> > reboot before installing or changing something, but if you decide to
keep your
> > changes, then you tell GoBack that and you carry on as normal. If you
reject
> > the changes, then another reboot is required.
> >
> >> Sure, but its main downside is that it takes a lot longer to do
> >> a safety backup before installing something etc and that does
> >> mean that you sometimes choose to take the risk and dont bother.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:cs99r4$9fd$1@news.service.uci.edu...

>>> Personally, if live backups aren't absolutely needed, I'd use only Ghost
>>> 2003 to backup offline. After all, how is 9 going to know which file
>>> version to backup during a live backup?!? The one written to disk last
>>> second, the one written to memory this second, or the one the very next
>>> second for all of the files open on the HD and in use?!?

>>> (ie. if you're writing something to disk, at what point in the partial save
>>> does it backup live!?! 1/3rd of a long paper, 1/2way into the paper, the
>>> latter 3/4 of the paper?!?)

>>> It's just a disaster waiting to happen!

>> Cant agree with that at all. One obvious advantage with
>> 9 is the INCREMENTAL backup which 2003 doesnt have.

> True.

>> If you want to avoid the potential problem with the file
>> versions you mentioned, it makes a lot more sense to
>> just ensure that the system isnt doing anything when
>> you do the last incremental backup rather than running
>> 2003 with its much longer time to do the backup.

> Just how do you tell Windows not to do ANYTHING at all?!?

You dont have to on that 'ANYTHING at all', just
ensure that you arent doing anything where that
file version potential problem can be relevant.

> There is no command, switch, program or what not from Microsoft or any 3rd
> party in existance that will do this.

Sure, but you dont need that.

> (we're not talking about killing just the programs under Task Manager here -
> that won't stop 100% of all disk operations for sure.)

Yes, but its easy to be sure that that file version problem cant arise.

>>> (Not to say you can't make a good working backup live - only that it can
>>> result in problems later with mutliple files open on the system.)

>> Sure, but its main downside is that it takes a lot longer to do
>> a safety backup before installing something etc and that does
>> mean that you sometimes choose to take the risk and dont bother.

> I don't know how long it takes over there, but with a 10GB c: drive, it can
> be backed up to a DVD-R in a dozen minutes or so; a second HD in minutes flat
> (as fast as the IDE bus can push data).

Hardly any of us use 10GB drives anymore.

It takes long enough that you can choose to risk
it with an install or update and regret that later.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Irwin <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105735993.785543.92360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> In my opinion, one should not do incremental backups of OS
> partitions to start with. Incremental backups of data partitions
> are fine. Incremental partitions of apps partitions may be OK.
> But not OS partitions. They are so complicated, so intricately
> entwined, I think the whole partition should be backed up each
> time. That way, when you have to restore, you get immediately
> back to a coherent state that is known to work.

Cant agree with that at all. OS partitions in fact arent actually
that dynamic, most of the stuff on them is pretty static over
time except for the stuff like the internet cache etc which doesnt
matter which state ends up in the backup in any practical sense.

I certainly wouldnt be stupid enough to do an incremental
backup while say installing or updating, and since I have
a single OS and apps partition, and dont bother to try to
keep the app internal data files in a separate partition,
I close the email client down so it wont be updating during
the incremental backup and dont say add appointments in
Outlook etc during the incremental backup, but you still get
the benefit of not having the much longer time for a full backup.

The most I do is just not do anything in the apps apart from
maybe playing freecell while the incremental backup happens etc.

> And with modern equipment, it doesn't even take that long.

Still long enough so that you can be tempted to
do an install or update without the protection of
an incremental backup just before doing those.

> With Ghost 2003 floppies, a USB2 port and an
> external HD, it takes me 7 minutes to back up
> a 15 GB OS partition that has 5 GB full.

Like I said, I prefer a combined OS and apps partition
and that takes considerably longer and even 7 mins is
too long for me, too tempted to risk it.

And with incremental backups I'm tempted to go back
to a single partition for OS apps and data and its never
going to be fast enough to do a full backup on anything
but some special purpose machine like the one in the
kitchen that doesnt have any data files on it at all.

And with the special purpose machines its generally
most convenient to have them backup over the lan
and that aint anything like fast enough even when they
are relatively small machines like say a 5GB system.

> So, don't rely on incremental OS backups. Back it up full every time.

No thanks, I prefer to just not use the system while
the incremental backup is happening for anything
more important than say a game etc or web browsing.

> And keep your data on a separate partition,
> and back that up any way you want.

While I do that currently because of the full backup time,
I'm considering redoing that now and going incremental.

> Just my opinion.

Not mine.

> Well, maybe that came across a little dogmatic.

Just a tad.

> If one wants to do incremental imaging of the OS partition to
> capture the occasional file that ends up on the desktop or in My
> Documents, then fine. But don'trely on it to restore the system.

Thats what I want the last minute backup for, so I can step
back gracefully with total certainty that I am back where I
started before the install that went pear shaped etc.

> There, that is more diplomatic.

But not really any more logical/rational over just not doing
anything while the incremental backup is happening.