Norton 9 + Ghost 2003

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
11 answers Last reply
More about norton ghost 2003
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
    >
  8. 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.
    >>
    >
    >
  9. 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.
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Norton Storage