Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Backing up

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:40:28 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up my data to
an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to use
something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.

I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by everybody who wants
to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing up data
(as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of the problem.
So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside to this?

Rob Graham

More about : backing

Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:40:29 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Make certain you verify the integrity of the image file. A bad image is a
terrible thing to encounter when you need it as there is no way to open a
corrupt image file that I know of. You can do this from Ghost by going to
the Check file option.

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:D atb9s$2kj$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up my data
> to an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to use
> something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.
>
> I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by everybody who
> wants to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing up
> data (as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of the
> problem. So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside to
> this?
>
> Rob Graham
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:58:47 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:D atb9s$2kj$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up my data
to
> an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to use
> something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.
>
> I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by everybody who
wants
> to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing up data
> (as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of the
problem.
> So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside to this?

Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB drive) so
I schedule mine at night. That means leaving the PC on which increases your
electricity bill. Some say that imaging an entire drive every night wears
out the drive faster but who knows if that's really true.
Related resources
July 11, 2005 2:12:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:bxqAe.142073$z83.7371863@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:D atb9s$2kj$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up my
data
> to
> > an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to use
> > something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.
> >
> > I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by everybody who
> wants
> > to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing up
data
> > (as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of the
> problem.
> > So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside to this?
>
> Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB drive)
so
> I schedule mine at night. That means leaving the PC on which increases
your
> electricity bill. Some say that imaging an entire drive every night wears
> out the drive faster but who knows if that's really true.
>
>

But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore individual
files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an incremental backup
program might be of more use?
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:12:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Gordon" <gordon@gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:3jerf8FpkqofU1@individual.net...
> "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
> news:bxqAe.142073$z83.7371863@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>>
>> "Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:D atb9s$2kj$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> > I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up
>> > my
> data
>> to
>> > an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to
>> > use
>> > something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.
>> >
>> > I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by everybody
>> > who
>> wants
>> > to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing
>> > up
> data
>> > (as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of the
>> problem.
>> > So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside to
>> > this?
>>
>> Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB
>> drive)
> so
>> I schedule mine at night. That means leaving the PC on which
>> increases
> your
>> electricity bill. Some say that imaging an entire drive every night
>> wears
>> out the drive faster but who knows if that's really true.
>>
>>
>
> But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore
> individual
> files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an incremental
> backup
> program might be of more use?
>
>


Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform incremental
backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked storage device.
It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40 to 50 gigabytes of
data.

--
William
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:12:14 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

>>> Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB drive)
>> so
>>> I schedule mine at night.

snip

>>
>> But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore individual
>> files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an incremental backup
>> program might be of more use?
>>
>>
>
>
> Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform incremental
> backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked storage device.
> It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40 to 50 gigabytes of
> data.
>

So after the initial imaging process, which may take up to say 45 mins,
daily incremental backups (or images, if you like) could be done, probably
taking no more than a few seconds, depending? And any specific file could be
accessed easily? At the moment I can access any file which I have backed up
(and it's not a *restore* process to do this) just simply by opening the
file from its separate location on the external HDD.

Rob
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:12:15 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost Image
Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your Windows
partition. You can also restore the complete Windows partition/drive.

Please note that True Image does NOT allow you to do this single file
restore on the Windows partition. With TI it is all or nothing.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

"Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:D atf7g$chi$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>> Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB
>>>> drive)
>>> so
>>>> I schedule mine at night.
>
> snip
>
>>>
>>> But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore
>>> individual
>>> files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an incremental backup
>>> program might be of more use?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform incremental
>> backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked storage device.
>> It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40 to 50 gigabytes of
>> data.
>>
>
> So after the initial imaging process, which may take up to say 45 mins,
> daily incremental backups (or images, if you like) could be done, probably
> taking no more than a few seconds, depending? And any specific file could
> be accessed easily? At the moment I can access any file which I have
> backed up (and it's not a *restore* process to do this) just simply by
> opening the file from its separate location on the external HDD.
>
> Rob
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:12:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eAoE$RghFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> "Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:D atf7g$chi$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>>> Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB
>>>>> drive)
>>>> so
>>>>> I schedule mine at night.
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>
>>>> But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore
>>>> individual
>>>> files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an incremental
>>>> backup
>>>> program might be of more use?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform
>>> incremental backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked
>>> storage device. It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40
>>> to 50 gigabytes of data.
>>>
>>
>> So after the initial imaging process, which may take up to say 45
>> mins, daily incremental backups (or images, if you like) could be
>> done, probably taking no more than a few seconds, depending? And any
>> specific file could be accessed easily? At the moment I can access
>> any file which I have backed up (and it's not a *restore* process to
>> do this) just simply by opening the file from its separate location
>> on the external HDD.
>>
> Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
> Image Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your
> Windows partition. You can also restore the complete Windows
> partition/drive.
>

<snip>

With Ghost 9.0, you can restore a single or multiple files as long they
are *not in use* within windows as well..

--
William
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:12:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eAoE$RghFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
> Image
> Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your Windows
> partition. You can also restore the complete Windows partition/drive.
>
> Please note that True Image does NOT allow you to do this single file
> restore on the Windows partition. With TI it is all or nothing.

Not true. You can easily restore single files on any partition with Acronis.

Feature list from www.acronis.com :

Key features:


Online system disk backup and instant bare-metal system restore


Restore individual files and folders


Integrated compression and password protection


Disk imaging and disk cloning


Incremental disk backup and disk backup image verification


Acronis Secure Zone and Acronis Startup Recovery Manager



mxh




begin 666 space.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`(#_`,# P ```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end

begin 666 black-dot2.gif
M1TE&.#EA"0`$`)$``*JJJBHJ*O___P```"'Y! $```(`+ `````)``0```(*
,1 *B>K?<GC!(%@`[
`
end
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:33:51 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Rob graham wrote:
>>>> Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB
>>>> drive) so I schedule mine at night.
>
> snip
>
>>>
>>> But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore
>>> individual files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an
>>> incremental backup program might be of more use?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform
>> incremental backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked
>> storage device. It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40
>> to 50 gigabytes of data.
>>
>
> So after the initial imaging process, which may take up to say 45
> mins, daily incremental backups (or images, if you like) could be
> done, probably taking no more than a few seconds, depending? And any
> specific file could be accessed easily? At the moment I can access
> any file which I have backed up (and it's not a *restore* process to
> do this) just simply by opening the file from its separate location
> on the external HDD.
> Rob

If you screw up a single file, backups are best. If you're worried about a
disk failure, imaging is best.

If your hard drive croaks, you're a couple of days from recovery. You've got
to format a new drive, install the operating system, update it, and install
all the system tools (virus checkers, etc.). You've got to configure this
and that, fuss with passwords, and other sticks and stones. Next, you've got
to install all your application software - and attendant updates. Whew!

Now (2 days later), you're ready to restore your data.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:33:52 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ui1hm3ihFHA.2424@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Rob graham wrote:
>>>>> Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB
>>>>> drive) so I schedule mine at night.
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>
>>>> But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore
>>>> individual files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an
>>>> incremental backup program might be of more use?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform
>>> incremental backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked
>>> storage device. It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40
>>> to 50 gigabytes of data.
>>>
>>
>> So after the initial imaging process, which may take up to say 45
>> mins, daily incremental backups (or images, if you like) could be
>> done, probably taking no more than a few seconds, depending? And any
>> specific file could be accessed easily? At the moment I can access
>> any file which I have backed up (and it's not a *restore* process to
>> do this) just simply by opening the file from its separate location
>> on the external HDD.
>> Rob
>
> If you screw up a single file, backups are best. If you're worried about a
> disk failure, imaging is best.
>
> If your hard drive croaks, you're a couple of days from recovery. You've
> got to format a new drive, install the operating system, update it, and
> install all the system tools (virus checkers, etc.). You've got to
> configure this and that, fuss with passwords, and other sticks and stones.
> Next, you've got to install all your application software - and attendant
> updates. Whew!
>
> Now (2 days later), you're ready to restore your data.
>

I have many clients who use ntbackup. I have had to restore from a crashed
hard drive several times for them. It only takes a few hours if they have
backed up the system state. Install new drive. Install Windows. Restore
backup. Test operation.

Kerry
July 11, 2005 2:41:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ejAlMqfhFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Gordon" <gordon@gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3jerf8FpkqofU1@individual.net...
> > "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
> > news:bxqAe.142073$z83.7371863@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >>
> >> "Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >> news:D atb9s$2kj$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >> > I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up
> >> > my
> > data
> >> to
> >> > an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to
> >> > use
> >> > something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.
> >> >
> >> > I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by everybody
> >> > who
> >> wants
> >> > to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing
> >> > up
> > data
> >> > (as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of the
> >> problem.
> >> > So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside to
> >> > this?
> >>
> >> Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB
> >> drive)
> > so
> >> I schedule mine at night. That means leaving the PC on which
> >> increases
> > your
> >> electricity bill. Some say that imaging an entire drive every night
> >> wears
> >> out the drive faster but who knows if that's really true.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore
> > individual
> > files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an incremental
> > backup
> > program might be of more use?
> >
> >
>
>
> Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform incremental
> backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked storage device.
> It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40 to 50 gigabytes of
> data.
>

Thanks for the correction!
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 4:04:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uIdWYgghFHA.2904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> With Ghost 9.0, you can restore a single or multiple files as long they
> are *not in use* within windows as well..

Can Ghost 9.0 do incremental backups?

I'm using Drive Image which Ghost is now based on. I believe Drive Image had
an older brother called v2i Protector that could do incremental backups
following a full drive image.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 4:04:10 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:ZetAe.142216$cf4.7482437@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uIdWYgghFHA.2904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >
>> With Ghost 9.0, you can restore a single or multiple files as long
>> they
>> are *not in use* within windows as well..
>
> Can Ghost 9.0 do incremental backups?
>

<snip>

Yes Ghost 9.0 can do this.

--
William
July 11, 2005 5:05:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:D atb9s$2kj$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up my data
> to an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to use
> something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.
>
> I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by everybody who
> wants to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing up
> data (as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of the
> problem. So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside to
> this?
>
> Rob Graham


Rob:
Hopefully, all the responses you've rec'd will give you sufficient info to
make a sensible choice for your particular situation. Anyway, let me give
you my thoughts as well...

I've been working with disk imaging programs for better than five years
now -- primarily Norton Ghost and more recently Acronis True Image. During
that time I would estimate I've personally or participated in the
disk-to-disk cloning of thousands of hard drives.

It has been a continual source of wonder to me why relatively few personal
computer users do not use a disk imaging program to clone the contents of
their day-to-day working hard drive to another drive in order to achieve a
near fail-safe backup system. In my view you will be well-served by
employing a disk imaging program such as the programs I've mentioned to
"clone" the contents of your working HD to another internal HD or preferably
(because of the added security) a removable HD or a USB/Firewire external
HD. In doing so you will be creating (for all practical purposes) an exact
duplicate of your working HD, in effect backing up your XP operating system,
registry and configuration settings, your programs and data files. In short,
*everything* that's on your working drive will be on your destination drive.
What better backup system can one have? So when the time comes that you have
to restore your working drive because of one problem or another with that
drive, you can re:clone the contents of your "cloned" drive back to the
internal drive. (You cannot boot from a USB EHD; however, if the recipient
of your clone was another internal HD, you could boot from that drive).

I've worked with various versions of the Ghost program over the years and
have found it to be a most reliable and effective program. The disk-to-disk
cloning process is simple, relatively quick, and most important of all --
effective.

In my own case I prefer to work with the Ghost 2003 program (now bundled
with the Ghost 9 program) because of my long experience with that program in
the XP OS environment. I've found the program easy to use and quite
effective in carrying out the disk-to-disk cloning operation. In working
with the Ghost 2003 program I usually use a Ghost bootable floppy and
sometimes a Ghost bootable CD to perform the cloning operation rather than
Ghost's Windows GUI. I find its simplicity and effectiveness and portability
aspects quite attractive for my purposes. The bootable floppy and/or
bootable CD are very simple to create in the Ghost program. My *exclusive*
interest is in creating disk-to-disk clones as previously mentioned. I've no
interest in creating "disk images" on CD/DVD media, nor do I have any
interest in making "incremental backups". To my mind the speed, simplicity,
and effectiveness of creating disk-to-disk clones obviates the need for
incremental backups. That, of course, is an individual choice.

I've recently started working with the Acronis True Image program because of
all the favorable reviews I've come across. I've been quite impressed with
the program because of its cloning speed. It's much faster than Ghost in my
experience, at least with respect to the Ghost 2003 program. Based on my
experience using ATI with medium-powered processors and modern drives,
cloning speed will be about 1.5+ GB/min (cloning to an internal drive), and
about 800+ MB/min (cloning to a USB EHD). Ghost's cloning speed is
considerably slower. One negative to the Acronis program (insofar as I'm
concerned) is that you cannot use that program with a single bootable floppy
disk as you can with Ghost. But you can use the program with a bootable CD
easily created in the Acronis program and that's what I usually use when I'm
employing that program.
Anna
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:58:54 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ejAlMqfhFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Gordon" <gordon@gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3jerf8FpkqofU1@individual.net...
>> "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
>> news:bxqAe.142073$z83.7371863@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>>>
>>> "Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:D atb9s$2kj$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>> > I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up my
>> data
>>> to
>>> > an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to
>>> > use
>>> > something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.
>>> >
>>> > I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by everybody who
>>> wants
>>> > to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing up
>> data
>>> > (as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of the
>>> problem.
>>> > So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside to this?
>>>
>>> Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB drive)
>> so
>>> I schedule mine at night. That means leaving the PC on which increases
>> your
>>> electricity bill. Some say that imaging an entire drive every night
>>> wears
>>> out the drive faster but who knows if that's really true.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore individual
>> files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an incremental backup
>> program might be of more use?
>>
>>
>
>
> Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform incremental
> backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked storage device.
> It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40 to 50 gigabytes of
> data.
>
> --
> William
>
>
>Can you boot-up yr PC from the networked drive when there is a system drive
>crash?
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:58:55 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Andre De Clercq" <andre.declercq@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:ePmpMhhhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> "WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ejAlMqfhFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> "Gordon" <gordon@gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:3jerf8FpkqofU1@individual.net...
>>> "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
>>> news:bxqAe.142073$z83.7371863@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>>>>
>>>> "Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:D atb9s$2kj$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>> > I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up
>>>> > my
>>> data
>>>> to
>>>> > an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better
>>>> > to use
>>>> > something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.
>>>> >
>>>> > I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by
>>>> > everybody who
>>>> wants
>>>> > to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing
>>>> > up
>>> data
>>>> > (as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of
>>>> > the
>>>> problem.
>>>> > So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside to
>>>> > this?
>>>>
>>>> Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB
>>>> drive)
>>> so
>>>> I schedule mine at night. That means leaving the PC on which
>>>> increases
>>> your
>>>> electricity bill. Some say that imaging an entire drive every night
>>>> wears
>>>> out the drive faster but who knows if that's really true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore
>>> individual
>>> files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an incremental
>>> backup
>>> program might be of more use?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform
>> incremental backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked
>> storage device. It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40
>> to 50 gigabytes of data.
>>
>> --
>> William
>>
>>
>>Can you boot-up yr PC from the networked drive when there is a system
>>drive crash?
>
>


Yes, the Ghost 9.0 disk is bootable and supports restoring from the
network.

--
William
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:58:56 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7Xy4ihhFHA.1052@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Andre De Clercq" <andre.declercq@pandora.be> wrote in message
> news:ePmpMhhhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
[ bunch snipped ] > >>
> >>Can you boot-up yr PC from the networked drive when there is a system
> >>drive crash?
> >
> Yes, the Ghost 9.0 disk is bootable and supports restoring from the
> network.
>
> --
> William
>

Even if it was not able to restore across the network if
you have a crash, if you have an image of what the drive
was ANYWHERE, there are ways to move that image
(CD-R, DVD, move drives etc) so you could work the
restore problem. The biggest issue is making sure you
have that image SOMEWHERE ;-) If you have a drive
crash, you can get a new drive and do the restore on a
different machine (that has the image) then put the drive
back where it belongs - been there, done that. (I use
Drive Image 7)

mikey
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 8:28:54 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eAoE$RghFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
> Image Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your
> Windows partition. You can also restore the complete Windows
> partition/drive.
>

Does the image contain the OS as well or do you have to install XP before
recovering the program and data files from the external HD? I.e. assuming I
could boot the machine from a boot CD, would the rest of the restore process
be literally copying the image back to the internal HD, OS and all?

Rob
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:08:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

And IF you boot up using the Ghost CD, what Windows files would be in use?

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

"WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uIdWYgghFHA.2904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:eAoE$RghFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:D atf7g$chi$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>>>> Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB
>>>>>> drive)
>>>>> so
>>>>>> I schedule mine at night.
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore
>>>>> individual
>>>>> files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an incremental
>>>>> backup
>>>>> program might be of more use?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform incremental
>>>> backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked storage
>>>> device. It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40 to 50
>>>> gigabytes of data.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So after the initial imaging process, which may take up to say 45 mins,
>>> daily incremental backups (or images, if you like) could be done,
>>> probably taking no more than a few seconds, depending? And any specific
>>> file could be accessed easily? At the moment I can access any file which
>>> I have backed up (and it's not a *restore* process to do this) just
>>> simply by opening the file from its separate location on the external
>>> HDD.
>>>
>> Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
>> Image Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your
>> Windows partition. You can also restore the complete Windows
>> partition/drive.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
> With Ghost 9.0, you can restore a single or multiple files as long they
> are *not in use* within windows as well..
>
> --
> William
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:08:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eF0a4ylhFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

[Top-posting corrected]

> "WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uIdWYgghFHA.2904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:eAoE$RghFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>

<snip>

>>>>
>>> Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the
>>> Ghost Image Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to
>>> your Windows partition. You can also restore the complete Windows
>>> partition/drive.
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> With Ghost 9.0, you can restore a single or multiple files as long
>> they are *not in use* within windows as well..
>>
> And IF you boot up using the Ghost CD, what Windows files would be in
> use?
>

I did not make any claims about windows files being in use when booting
from a Ghost CD.

Maybe you misunderstood me, I simply meant you can restore file(s)
within Windows (not using the GhostCD) as long as the file(s) are not in
use.

--
William
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:13:27 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

TI restores single or multiple files while booted into Windows - only. If
the file you want to restore is being used by windows (as in a system file,
running process or dll etc.) the file can not be restored. If you have found
a way to do this, please post your methodology here for everyone to see.

TI also does NOT give you the opportunity to do this by booting up with
their CD.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

"mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:76vAe.44714$rb6.21374@lakeread07...
>
> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:eAoE$RghFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
>> Image
>> Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your Windows
>> partition. You can also restore the complete Windows partition/drive.
>>
>> Please note that True Image does NOT allow you to do this single file
>> restore on the Windows partition. With TI it is all or nothing.
>
> Not true. You can easily restore single files on any partition with
> Acronis.
>
> Feature list from www.acronis.com :
>
> Key features:
>
>
> Online system disk backup and instant bare-metal system restore
>
>
> Restore individual files and folders
>
>
> Integrated compression and password protection
>
>
> Disk imaging and disk cloning
>
>
> Incremental disk backup and disk backup image verification
>
>
> Acronis Secure Zone and Acronis Startup Recovery Manager
>
>
>
> mxh
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:24:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Mike Fields" <spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eZXmUoihFHA.708@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> "WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e7Xy4ihhFHA.1052@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> "Andre De Clercq" <andre.declercq@pandora.be> wrote in message
>> news:ePmpMhhhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> [ bunch snipped ] > >>
>> >>Can you boot-up yr PC from the networked drive when there is a system
>> >>drive crash?
>> >
>> Yes, the Ghost 9.0 disk is bootable and supports restoring from the
>> network.
>>
>> --
>> William
>>
>
> Even if it was not able to restore across the network if
> you have a crash, if you have an image of what the drive
> was ANYWHERE, there are ways to move that image
> (CD-R, DVD, move drives etc) so you could work the
> restore problem. The biggest issue is making sure you
> have that image SOMEWHERE ;-) If you have a drive
> crash, you can get a new drive and do the restore on a
> different machine (that has the image) then put the drive
> back where it belongs - been there, done that. (I use
> Drive Image 7)
>
> mikey
>
>
Yes mikey, if you have the image you can always make e.g. a boot CDrom, but
my question was aboyt the ability to boot from a remote site (server...)
after a disk crash without an intermediate step.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:06:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Thank you for the clarification. At times I can be obtuse.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

"WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1pE6QmhFHA.1460@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:eF0a4ylhFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> [Top-posting corrected]
>
>> "WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uIdWYgghFHA.2904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:eAoE$RghFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>
>>>> Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
>>>> Image Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your
>>>> Windows partition. You can also restore the complete Windows
>>>> partition/drive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> With Ghost 9.0, you can restore a single or multiple files as long they
>>> are *not in use* within windows as well..
>>>
>> And IF you boot up using the Ghost CD, what Windows files would be in
>> use?
>>
>
> I did not make any claims about windows files being in use when booting
> from a Ghost CD.
>
> Maybe you misunderstood me, I simply meant you can restore file(s) within
> Windows (not using the GhostCD) as long as the file(s) are not in use.
>
> --
> William
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:06:36 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:%23b$zNTmhFHA.2444@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thank you for the clarification. At times I can be obtuse.
>
> --

Not a problem.

--
William
July 11, 2005 10:06:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Putting aside the use of removable media, why do you prefer to "clone" a drive
rather than create an "image" of it? From what I can tell from the Ghost
manuals, "cloning" seems to overwrite the entire destination disk or partition,
while an "image" appears to use only the space necessary.

For example, suppose I'm backing up a 80 GB drive and I have a 120 GB
USB/Firewire drive. It seems that if I were to clone the 80 GB drive, it would
use up all of the backup drive (unless I had previously partitioned the backup
drive). But, if (because my 80 GB drive isn't completely full, and I elect to
use some compression) the Ghost "image" is say only 35 GB, I could keep three
images on the backup drive and do a "rotating" backup.

Anna wrote:

> "Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:D atb9s$2kj$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up my data
> > to an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to use
> > something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.
> >
> > I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by everybody who
> > wants to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing up
> > data (as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of the
> > problem. So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside to
> > this?
> >
> > Rob Graham
>
> Rob:
> Hopefully, all the responses you've rec'd will give you sufficient info to
> make a sensible choice for your particular situation. Anyway, let me give
> you my thoughts as well...
>
> I've been working with disk imaging programs for better than five years
> now -- primarily Norton Ghost and more recently Acronis True Image. During
> that time I would estimate I've personally or participated in the
> disk-to-disk cloning of thousands of hard drives.
>
> It has been a continual source of wonder to me why relatively few personal
> computer users do not use a disk imaging program to clone the contents of
> their day-to-day working hard drive to another drive in order to achieve a
> near fail-safe backup system. In my view you will be well-served by
> employing a disk imaging program such as the programs I've mentioned to
> "clone" the contents of your working HD to another internal HD or preferably
> (because of the added security) a removable HD or a USB/Firewire external
> HD. In doing so you will be creating (for all practical purposes) an exact
> duplicate of your working HD, in effect backing up your XP operating system,
> registry and configuration settings, your programs and data files. In short,
> *everything* that's on your working drive will be on your destination drive.
> What better backup system can one have? So when the time comes that you have
> to restore your working drive because of one problem or another with that
> drive, you can re:clone the contents of your "cloned" drive back to the
> internal drive. (You cannot boot from a USB EHD; however, if the recipient
> of your clone was another internal HD, you could boot from that drive).
>
> I've worked with various versions of the Ghost program over the years and
> have found it to be a most reliable and effective program. The disk-to-disk
> cloning process is simple, relatively quick, and most important of all --
> effective.
>
> In my own case I prefer to work with the Ghost 2003 program (now bundled
> with the Ghost 9 program) because of my long experience with that program in
> the XP OS environment. I've found the program easy to use and quite
> effective in carrying out the disk-to-disk cloning operation. In working
> with the Ghost 2003 program I usually use a Ghost bootable floppy and
> sometimes a Ghost bootable CD to perform the cloning operation rather than
> Ghost's Windows GUI. I find its simplicity and effectiveness and portability
> aspects quite attractive for my purposes. The bootable floppy and/or
> bootable CD are very simple to create in the Ghost program. My *exclusive*
> interest is in creating disk-to-disk clones as previously mentioned. I've no
> interest in creating "disk images" on CD/DVD media, nor do I have any
> interest in making "incremental backups". To my mind the speed, simplicity,
> and effectiveness of creating disk-to-disk clones obviates the need for
> incremental backups. That, of course, is an individual choice.
>
> I've recently started working with the Acronis True Image program because of
> all the favorable reviews I've come across. I've been quite impressed with
> the program because of its cloning speed. It's much faster than Ghost in my
> experience, at least with respect to the Ghost 2003 program. Based on my
> experience using ATI with medium-powered processors and modern drives,
> cloning speed will be about 1.5+ GB/min (cloning to an internal drive), and
> about 800+ MB/min (cloning to a USB EHD). Ghost's cloning speed is
> considerably slower. One negative to the Acronis program (insofar as I'm
> concerned) is that you cannot use that program with a single bootable floppy
> disk as you can with Ghost. But you can use the program with a bootable CD
> easily created in the Acronis program and that's what I usually use when I'm
> employing that program.
> Anna
July 11, 2005 10:53:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

>> "Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:D atb9s$2kj$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> > I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up my
>> > data
>> > to an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to
>> > use
>> > something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.
>> >
>> > I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by everybody who
>> > wants to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing
>> > up
>> > data (as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of the
>> > problem. So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside
>> > to
>> > this?
>> >
>> > Rob Graham


> Anna wrote:
>> Rob:
>> Hopefully, all the responses you've rec'd will give you sufficient info
>> to
>> make a sensible choice for your particular situation. Anyway, let me give
>> you my thoughts as well...
>>
>> I've been working with disk imaging programs for better than five years
>> now -- primarily Norton Ghost and more recently Acronis True Image.
>> During
>> that time I would estimate I've personally or participated in the
>> disk-to-disk cloning of thousands of hard drives.
>>
>> It has been a continual source of wonder to me why relatively few
>> personal
>> computer users do not use a disk imaging program to clone the contents of
>> their day-to-day working hard drive to another drive in order to achieve
>> a
>> near fail-safe backup system. In my view you will be well-served by
>> employing a disk imaging program such as the programs I've mentioned to
>> "clone" the contents of your working HD to another internal HD or
>> preferably
>> (because of the added security) a removable HD or a USB/Firewire
>> external
>> HD. In doing so you will be creating (for all practical purposes) an
>> exact
>> duplicate of your working HD, in effect backing up your XP operating
>> system,
>> registry and configuration settings, your programs and data files. In
>> short,
>> *everything* that's on your working drive will be on your destination
>> drive.
>> What better backup system can one have? So when the time comes that you
>> have
>> to restore your working drive because of one problem or another with that
>> drive, you can re:clone the contents of your "cloned" drive back to the
>> internal drive. (You cannot boot from a USB EHD; however, if the
>> recipient
>> of your clone was another internal HD, you could boot from that drive).
>>
>> I've worked with various versions of the Ghost program over the years and
>> have found it to be a most reliable and effective program. The
>> disk-to-disk
>> cloning process is simple, relatively quick, and most important of all --
>> effective.
>>
>> In my own case I prefer to work with the Ghost 2003 program (now bundled
>> with the Ghost 9 program) because of my long experience with that program
>> in
>> the XP OS environment. I've found the program easy to use and quite
>> effective in carrying out the disk-to-disk cloning operation. In working
>> with the Ghost 2003 program I usually use a Ghost bootable floppy and
>> sometimes a Ghost bootable CD to perform the cloning operation rather
>> than
>> Ghost's Windows GUI. I find its simplicity and effectiveness and
>> portability
>> aspects quite attractive for my purposes. The bootable floppy and/or
>> bootable CD are very simple to create in the Ghost program. My
>> *exclusive*
>> interest is in creating disk-to-disk clones as previously mentioned. I've
>> no
>> interest in creating "disk images" on CD/DVD media, nor do I have any
>> interest in making "incremental backups". To my mind the speed,
>> simplicity,
>> and effectiveness of creating disk-to-disk clones obviates the need for
>> incremental backups. That, of course, is an individual choice.
>>
>> I've recently started working with the Acronis True Image program because
>> of
>> all the favorable reviews I've come across. I've been quite impressed
>> with
>> the program because of its cloning speed. It's much faster than Ghost in
>> my
>> experience, at least with respect to the Ghost 2003 program. Based on my
>> experience using ATI with medium-powered processors and modern drives,
>> cloning speed will be about 1.5+ GB/min (cloning to an internal drive),
>> and
>> about 800+ MB/min (cloning to a USB EHD). Ghost's cloning speed is
>> considerably slower. One negative to the Acronis program (insofar as I'm
>> concerned) is that you cannot use that program with a single bootable
>> floppy
>> disk as you can with Ghost. But you can use the program with a bootable
>> CD
>> easily created in the Acronis program and that's what I usually use when
>> I'm
>> employing that program.
>> Anna


"Lem" <lemp40@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42D2ED6E.5A3551D7@hotmail.com...
> Putting aside the use of removable media, why do you prefer to "clone" a
> drive
> rather than create an "image" of it? From what I can tell from the Ghost
> manuals, "cloning" seems to overwrite the entire destination disk or
> partition,
> while an "image" appears to use only the space necessary.
>
> For example, suppose I'm backing up a 80 GB drive and I have a 120 GB
> USB/Firewire drive. It seems that if I were to clone the 80 GB drive, it
> would
> use up all of the backup drive (unless I had previously partitioned the
> backup
> drive). But, if (because my 80 GB drive isn't completely full, and I
> elect to
> use some compression) the Ghost "image" is say only 35 GB, I could keep
> three
> images on the backup drive and do a "rotating" backup.


Lem:
My overriding concern -- and more importantly that of my clients -- is to
*always* (or at least *nearly* always) have at hand a fully cloned copy of
one's working HD. A cloned copy that is instantly bootable (we generally
work with removable hard drives in their mobile racks so we have that
capability) or at least a simple installation/configuring of the cloned HD
so that the system is operational in as short a time frame as possible.
Obviously in the case where the user employs a USB external HD as his/her
recipient of the clone, this will necessitate a re:clone of the external
drive's contents back to the internal drive.

We have little or no interest in compressing data. Our experience has taught
us that compression schemes carry too great a potential risk (albeit
admittedly small with modern OSs like XP) for file corruption. Given today's
relatively cheap cost of hard drive capacity we have no interest in that
area. Our exclusive goal is to create a near-failsafe backup system that's
simple to use, reasonably quick to perform, and effective in its results. By
& large we have found using a disk imaging program to carry out
straightforward disk-to-disk cloning meets our objectives.

You give the example of cloning the contents of an 80 GB drive to a 120 GB
drive. You'll still have a 120 GB drive, no? If you've cloned the contents
of your 80 GB drive to the 120 GB one, then the 120 GB drive will still have
40 GB of unused capacity, will it not? Is that a problem? If you feel you're
"wasting" 40 GB, then simply create two or three or whatever partitions on
your 120 GB drive -- one of 80 GB, and the other(s) totaling 40 GB. And just
so there's no misunderstanding about this -- if the contents of your 80 GB
drive total, say 35 GB as in your example, then *that's* the amount of data
that will be cloned to your destination drive. So you're not really "using
up" the total capacity of your destination disk.
Anna
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:35:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

One of the things I like about Ghost is that you can create/verify the image
in one step. If the image doesn't verify it lets you know and you can try
again. With True Image it is a separate and distinct 2nd step.

What I really wish one of these programs would do is:
1. Create an image you are overwriting as a temp file in the destination
drive, no matter what file name you choose to give it.
2. When the image has been verified, change the name programmatically and
overwrite the original.
3. If the new image does not verify, leave the original intact and
unchanged.

I have had the experience of creating an image (say WinXP-last) every
Friday. One time the image failed - after the original had been deleted, of
course. It was a 25 gig image so the recycle bin did not pick it up.

Just a dream I guess. (-:

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

"Harry Ohrn" <harry---@webtree.ca> wrote in message
news:%23m$6UrmhFHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Make certain you verify the integrity of the image file. A bad image is a
> terrible thing to encounter when you need it as there is no way to open a
> corrupt image file that I know of. You can do this from Ghost by going to
> the Check file option.
>
> --
>
> Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
> www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
>
>
> "Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:D atb9s$2kj$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up my data
>> to an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to
>> use something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.
>>
>> I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by everybody who
>> wants to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing
>> up data (as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of
>> the problem. So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside
>> to this?
>>
>> Rob Graham
>>
>
>
July 12, 2005 3:19:26 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Anna wrote:
>>>"Rob graham" <rttgrahamwow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:D atb9s$2kj$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>
>>>>I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up my
>>>>data
>>>>to an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to
>>>>use
>>>>something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.
>>>>
>>>>I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by everybody who
>>>>wants to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing
>>>>up
>>>>data (as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of the
>>>>problem. So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside
>>>>to
>>>>this?
>>>>
>>>>Rob Graham
>
>
>
>>Anna wrote:
>>
>>>Rob:
>>>Hopefully, all the responses you've rec'd will give you sufficient info
>>>to
>>>make a sensible choice for your particular situation. Anyway, let me give
>>>you my thoughts as well...
>>>
>>>I've been working with disk imaging programs for better than five years
>>>now -- primarily Norton Ghost and more recently Acronis True Image.
>>>During
>>>that time I would estimate I've personally or participated in the
>>>disk-to-disk cloning of thousands of hard drives.
>>>
>>>It has been a continual source of wonder to me why relatively few
>>>personal
>>>computer users do not use a disk imaging program to clone the contents of
>>>their day-to-day working hard drive to another drive in order to achieve
>>>a
>>>near fail-safe backup system. In my view you will be well-served by
>>>employing a disk imaging program such as the programs I've mentioned to
>>>"clone" the contents of your working HD to another internal HD or
>>>preferably
>>>(because of the added security) a removable HD or a USB/Firewire
>>>external
>>>HD. In doing so you will be creating (for all practical purposes) an
>>>exact
>>>duplicate of your working HD, in effect backing up your XP operating
>>>system,
>>>registry and configuration settings, your programs and data files. In
>>>short,
>>>*everything* that's on your working drive will be on your destination
>>>drive.
>>>What better backup system can one have? So when the time comes that you
>>>have
>>>to restore your working drive because of one problem or another with that
>>>drive, you can re:clone the contents of your "cloned" drive back to the
>>>internal drive. (You cannot boot from a USB EHD; however, if the
>>>recipient
>>>of your clone was another internal HD, you could boot from that drive).
>>>
>>>I've worked with various versions of the Ghost program over the years and
>>>have found it to be a most reliable and effective program. The
>>>disk-to-disk
>>>cloning process is simple, relatively quick, and most important of all --
>>>effective.
>>>
>>> In my own case I prefer to work with the Ghost 2003 program (now bundled
>>>with the Ghost 9 program) because of my long experience with that program
>>>in
>>>the XP OS environment. I've found the program easy to use and quite
>>>effective in carrying out the disk-to-disk cloning operation. In working
>>>with the Ghost 2003 program I usually use a Ghost bootable floppy and
>>>sometimes a Ghost bootable CD to perform the cloning operation rather
>>>than
>>>Ghost's Windows GUI. I find its simplicity and effectiveness and
>>>portability
>>>aspects quite attractive for my purposes. The bootable floppy and/or
>>>bootable CD are very simple to create in the Ghost program. My
>>>*exclusive*
>>>interest is in creating disk-to-disk clones as previously mentioned. I've
>>>no
>>>interest in creating "disk images" on CD/DVD media, nor do I have any
>>>interest in making "incremental backups". To my mind the speed,
>>>simplicity,
>>>and effectiveness of creating disk-to-disk clones obviates the need for
>>>incremental backups. That, of course, is an individual choice.
>>>
>>>I've recently started working with the Acronis True Image program because
>>>of
>>>all the favorable reviews I've come across. I've been quite impressed
>>>with
>>>the program because of its cloning speed. It's much faster than Ghost in
>>>my
>>>experience, at least with respect to the Ghost 2003 program. Based on my
>>>experience using ATI with medium-powered processors and modern drives,
>>>cloning speed will be about 1.5+ GB/min (cloning to an internal drive),
>>>and
>>>about 800+ MB/min (cloning to a USB EHD). Ghost's cloning speed is
>>>considerably slower. One negative to the Acronis program (insofar as I'm
>>>concerned) is that you cannot use that program with a single bootable
>>>floppy
>>>disk as you can with Ghost. But you can use the program with a bootable
>>>CD
>>>easily created in the Acronis program and that's what I usually use when
>>>I'm
>>>employing that program.
>>>Anna
>
>
>
> "Lem" <lemp40@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:42D2ED6E.5A3551D7@hotmail.com...
>
>>Putting aside the use of removable media, why do you prefer to "clone" a
>>drive
>>rather than create an "image" of it? From what I can tell from the Ghost
>>manuals, "cloning" seems to overwrite the entire destination disk or
>>partition,
>>while an "image" appears to use only the space necessary.
>>
>>For example, suppose I'm backing up a 80 GB drive and I have a 120 GB
>>USB/Firewire drive. It seems that if I were to clone the 80 GB drive, it
>>would
>>use up all of the backup drive (unless I had previously partitioned the
>>backup
>>drive). But, if (because my 80 GB drive isn't completely full, and I
>>elect to
>>use some compression) the Ghost "image" is say only 35 GB, I could keep
>>three
>>images on the backup drive and do a "rotating" backup.
>
>
>
> Lem:
> My overriding concern -- and more importantly that of my clients -- is to
> *always* (or at least *nearly* always) have at hand a fully cloned copy of
> one's working HD. A cloned copy that is instantly bootable (we generally
> work with removable hard drives in their mobile racks so we have that
> capability) or at least a simple installation/configuring of the cloned HD
> so that the system is operational in as short a time frame as possible.
> Obviously in the case where the user employs a USB external HD as his/her
> recipient of the clone, this will necessitate a re:clone of the external
> drive's contents back to the internal drive.
>
> We have little or no interest in compressing data. Our experience has taught
> us that compression schemes carry too great a potential risk (albeit
> admittedly small with modern OSs like XP) for file corruption. Given today's
> relatively cheap cost of hard drive capacity we have no interest in that
> area. Our exclusive goal is to create a near-failsafe backup system that's
> simple to use, reasonably quick to perform, and effective in its results. By
> & large we have found using a disk imaging program to carry out
> straightforward disk-to-disk cloning meets our objectives.
>
> You give the example of cloning the contents of an 80 GB drive to a 120 GB
> drive. You'll still have a 120 GB drive, no? If you've cloned the contents
> of your 80 GB drive to the 120 GB one, then the 120 GB drive will still have
> 40 GB of unused capacity, will it not? Is that a problem? If you feel you're
> "wasting" 40 GB, then simply create two or three or whatever partitions on
> your 120 GB drive -- one of 80 GB, and the other(s) totaling 40 GB. And just
> so there's no misunderstanding about this -- if the contents of your 80 GB
> drive total, say 35 GB as in your example, then *that's* the amount of data
> that will be cloned to your destination drive. So you're not really "using
> up" the total capacity of your destination disk.
> Anna
>
>

Anna:
I'm not very familiar with Ghost, but as I read the manual, it seemed to
say that if you cloned a 80 GB disk to a one-partition 120 GB disk, then
you would not have any free space left. As you say, though, one could
partition it appropriately first. And thanks for explaining your
rationale -- your approach may not be the best for everyone, but I
understand what you're doing.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 4:17:09 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

After sticking his head out from his XP firewall, Lem had this to say:

> Putting aside the use of removable media, why do you prefer to "clone" a
> drive
> rather than create an "image" of it? From what I can tell from the Ghost
> manuals, "cloning" seems to overwrite the entire destination disk or
> partition, while an "image" appears to use only the space necessary.
>
> For example, suppose I'm backing up a 80 GB drive and I have a 120 GB
> USB/Firewire drive. It seems that if I were to clone the 80 GB drive, it
> would use up all of the backup drive (unless I had previously partitioned
> the backup
> drive). But, if (because my 80 GB drive isn't completely full, and I
> elect to use some compression) the Ghost "image" is say only 35 GB, I
> could keep three images on the backup drive and do a "rotating" backup.
>
IMO, you are choosing to do it the best way. The advocates of cloning the
hard drive as opposed to imaging it, should just setup a mirrored raid
system if that is what they want to accomplish. For backups, imaging with
incremental backups are the preferred way to go.



--
Still running XP (The Toy Operating System eXPerience)?
Kiddies, don't forget to defrag your hard drive & update your virus
definitions. And NEVER connect to the Internet!
http://w-3productions.com/more.jpg
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 4:25:25 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

After sticking his head out from his XP firewall, Rob graham had this to
say:

>
> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:eAoE$RghFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
>> Image Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your
>> Windows partition. You can also restore the complete Windows
>> partition/drive.
>>
>
> Does the image contain the OS as well or do you have to install XP before
> recovering the program and data files from the external HD? I.e. assuming
> I could boot the machine from a boot CD, would the rest of the restore
> process be literally copying the image back to the internal HD, OS and
> all?
>
> Rob
Of course. It's an image of the hard drive. If that hard drive that was
imaged, contained the OS, it would be restored also.


--
Still running XP (The Toy Operating System eXPerience)?
Kiddies, don't forget to defrag your hard drive & update your virus
definitions. And NEVER connect to the Internet!
http://w-3productions.com/more.jpg
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 4:35:40 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

After sticking his head out from his XP firewall, Kerry Brown had this to
say:

> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ui1hm3ihFHA.2424@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Rob graham wrote:
>>>>>> Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB
>>>>>> drive) so I schedule mine at night.
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore
>>>>> individual files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an
>>>>> incremental backup program might be of more use?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform
>>>> incremental backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked
>>>> storage device. It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40
>>>> to 50 gigabytes of data.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So after the initial imaging process, which may take up to say 45
>>> mins, daily incremental backups (or images, if you like) could be
>>> done, probably taking no more than a few seconds, depending? And any
>>> specific file could be accessed easily? At the moment I can access
>>> any file which I have backed up (and it's not a *restore* process to
>>> do this) just simply by opening the file from its separate location
>>> on the external HDD.
>>> Rob
>>
>> If you screw up a single file, backups are best. If you're worried about
>> a disk failure, imaging is best.
>>
>> If your hard drive croaks, you're a couple of days from recovery. You've
>> got to format a new drive, install the operating system, update it, and
>> install all the system tools (virus checkers, etc.). You've got to
>> configure this and that, fuss with passwords, and other sticks and
>> stones. Next, you've got to install all your application software - and
>> attendant updates. Whew!
>>
>> Now (2 days later), you're ready to restore your data.
>>
>
> I have many clients who use ntbackup. I have had to restore from a crashed
> hard drive several times for them. It only takes a few hours if they have
> backed up the system state. Install new drive. Install Windows. Restore
> backup. Test operation.
>
> Kerry

You should advise them to get True Image or Ghost. The cost of having you
spend a "few hours" going through that process is surely far more expensive
than either one of those programs?


--
Still running XP (The Toy Operating System eXPerience)?
Kiddies, don't forget to defrag your hard drive & update your virus
definitions. And NEVER connect to the Internet!
http://w-3productions.com/more.jpg
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 4:35:41 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:wfEAe.1937279$Xk.1139875@pd7tw3no...
> After sticking his head out from his XP firewall, Kerry Brown had this to
> say:
>
>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ui1hm3ihFHA.2424@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> Rob graham wrote:
>>>>>>> Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB
>>>>>>> drive) so I schedule mine at night.
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore
>>>>>> individual files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an
>>>>>> incremental backup program might be of more use?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform
>>>>> incremental backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked
>>>>> storage device. It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40
>>>>> to 50 gigabytes of data.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So after the initial imaging process, which may take up to say 45
>>>> mins, daily incremental backups (or images, if you like) could be
>>>> done, probably taking no more than a few seconds, depending? And any
>>>> specific file could be accessed easily? At the moment I can access
>>>> any file which I have backed up (and it's not a *restore* process to
>>>> do this) just simply by opening the file from its separate location
>>>> on the external HDD.
>>>> Rob
>>>
>>> If you screw up a single file, backups are best. If you're worried about
>>> a disk failure, imaging is best.
>>>
>>> If your hard drive croaks, you're a couple of days from recovery. You've
>>> got to format a new drive, install the operating system, update it, and
>>> install all the system tools (virus checkers, etc.). You've got to
>>> configure this and that, fuss with passwords, and other sticks and
>>> stones. Next, you've got to install all your application software - and
>>> attendant updates. Whew!
>>>
>>> Now (2 days later), you're ready to restore your data.
>>>
>>
>> I have many clients who use ntbackup. I have had to restore from a
>> crashed
>> hard drive several times for them. It only takes a few hours if they have
>> backed up the system state. Install new drive. Install Windows. Restore
>> backup. Test operation.
>>
>> Kerry
>
> You should advise them to get True Image or Ghost. The cost of having you
> spend a "few hours" going through that process is surely far more
> expensive
> than either one of those programs?
>

In most cases they are using tape. I recommend an image as well as tape but
most clients don't go for it. Some of them are also backing up servers. I've
never been able to get an image program to work properly with when restoring
a domain controller. Ntbackup works great for that.

Kerry

>
> --
> Still running XP (The Toy Operating System eXPerience)?
> Kiddies, don't forget to defrag your hard drive & update your virus
> definitions. And NEVER connect to the Internet!
> http://w-3productions.com/more.jpg
>
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 10:43:36 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Thanks everybody for your help in sorting me out, and particularly to Anna
for her lengthy reply.

Rob
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 12:31:05 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ugkch1lhFHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> TI restores single or multiple files while booted into Windows - only. If
> the file you want to restore is being used by windows (as in a system
> file, running process or dll etc.) the file can not be restored. If you
> have found a way to do this, please post your methodology here for
> everyone to see.

Is this last line some sort of reprimand? If so, you should know that I
respond very poorly to such stimuli. Below, you will find my "methodology".
Not sure if *everyone* will see it, but if it means that much to you,
perhaps you could repost it at various intervals.

"Explore" the image you wish to restore the system file from, restore to a
folder of your choice (other than windows), boot into DOS (or better yet,
use Barts PE) & copy from the folder you placed it in to the required folder
Presumably Windows\?, overwriting the exisiting file.

A simple solution that requires an extra step, but TI is well worth it if it
means avoiding Norton and the destestable Ghost v9. Sometimes, one need only
be a little creative.

mxh


> TI also does NOT give you the opportunity to do this by booting up with
> their CD.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>
> Quote from: George Ankner
> "If you knew as much as you thought you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"
>
> "mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:76vAe.44714$rb6.21374@lakeread07...
>>
>> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:eAoE$RghFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
>>> Image
>>> Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your Windows
>>> partition. You can also restore the complete Windows partition/drive.
>>>
>>> Please note that True Image does NOT allow you to do this single file
>>> restore on the Windows partition. With TI it is all or nothing.
>>
>> Not true. You can easily restore single files on any partition with
>> Acronis.
>>
>> Feature list from www.acronis.com :
>>
>> Key features:
>>
>>
>> Online system disk backup and instant bare-metal system restore
>>
>>
>> Restore individual files and folders
>>
>>
>> Integrated compression and password protection
>>
>>
>> Disk imaging and disk cloning
>>
>>
>> Incremental disk backup and disk backup image verification
>>
>>
>> Acronis Secure Zone and Acronis Startup Recovery Manager
>>
>>
>>
>> mxh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 2:09:53 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

That is not "exactly" restoring a file with True Image but thank you for
posting the information. As the procedure is NOT an integral part of True
Image, and requires use of other programs, others would not have likely
figured it out.

As I have stated, Ghost does this natively from within the program. No extra
steps needed.

As for my challenge, it did get you to post what you were only obliquely
alluding to earlier, so others may have benefited.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

"mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:j9_Ae.44809$rb6.2072@lakeread07...
>
> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:ugkch1lhFHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> TI restores single or multiple files while booted into Windows - only. If
>> the file you want to restore is being used by windows (as in a system
>> file, running process or dll etc.) the file can not be restored. If you
>> have found a way to do this, please post your methodology here for
>> everyone to see.
>
> Is this last line some sort of reprimand? If so, you should know that I
> respond very poorly to such stimuli. Below, you will find my
> "methodology".
> Not sure if *everyone* will see it, but if it means that much to you,
> perhaps you could repost it at various intervals.
>
> "Explore" the image you wish to restore the system file from, restore to a
> folder of your choice (other than windows), boot into DOS (or better yet,
> use Barts PE) & copy from the folder you placed it in to the required
> folder Presumably Windows\?, overwriting the exisiting file.
>
> A simple solution that requires an extra step, but TI is well worth it if
> it means avoiding Norton and the destestable Ghost v9. Sometimes, one need
> only be a little creative.
>
> mxh
>
>
>> TI also does NOT give you the opportunity to do this by booting up with
>> their CD.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban
>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>>
>> Quote from: George Ankner
>> "If you knew as much as you thought you know,
>> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"
>>
>> "mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:76vAe.44714$rb6.21374@lakeread07...
>>>
>>> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:eAoE$RghFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>> Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
>>>> Image
>>>> Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your Windows
>>>> partition. You can also restore the complete Windows partition/drive.
>>>>
>>>> Please note that True Image does NOT allow you to do this single file
>>>> restore on the Windows partition. With TI it is all or nothing.
>>>
>>> Not true. You can easily restore single files on any partition with
>>> Acronis.
>>>
>>> Feature list from www.acronis.com :
>>>
>>> Key features:
>>>
>>>
>>> Online system disk backup and instant bare-metal system restore
>>>
>>>
>>> Restore individual files and folders
>>>
>>>
>>> Integrated compression and password protection
>>>
>>>
>>> Disk imaging and disk cloning
>>>
>>>
>>> Incremental disk backup and disk backup image verification
>>>
>>>
>>> Acronis Secure Zone and Acronis Startup Recovery Manager
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> mxh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 4:47:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:76vAe.44714$rb6.21374@lakeread07...
>
> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:eAoE$RghFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
>> Image
>> Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your Windows
>> partition. You can also restore the complete Windows partition/drive.
>>
>> Please note that True Image does NOT allow you to do this single file
>> restore on the Windows partition. With TI it is all or nothing.
>
> Not true. You can easily restore single files on any partition with
> Acronis.
>
> Feature list from www.acronis.com :
>
> Key features:
>
>
> Online system disk backup and instant bare-metal system restore
>
>
> Restore individual files and folders
>
>
> Integrated compression and password protection
>
>
> Disk imaging and disk cloning
>
>
> Incremental disk backup and disk backup image verification
>
>
> Acronis Secure Zone and Acronis Startup Recovery Manager
>

Can TI create an image back up to a networked drive? Also can TI restore
the complete image from a networked drive?

--
William
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 6:35:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uVdS2$0hFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> That is not "exactly" restoring a file with True Image but thank you for
> posting the information. As the procedure is NOT an integral part of True
> Image, and requires use of other programs, others would not have likely
> figured it out.
>
> As I have stated, Ghost does this natively from within the program. No
> extra steps needed.
>
> As for my challenge, it did get you to post what you were only obliquely
> alluding to earlier, so others may have benefited.

Is that what you call it? A "challenge". Seemed to be more of an
antogonistic remark. Perhaps because you are uncomfortable with being
challenged. From your response, it's obvious that you felt the need to
declare righteousness (subjective...).

You do, however, seem to overlook the reality that those "others who would
not have likely figured it out" would "not have likely" figured out the need
to restore an individual system file, let alone figured out how to do it,
even from within (ugh) Ghost v9.

Your "challenge" was indeed antagonistic and provocative, as you well know.
One would think that, as an MVP, you would subject yourself to a higher
standard of behavior than has been displayed, but then, one would also
expect that an MVP would understand usenet etiquette and the reason that top
posting is frowned on, but apparently not, given that both ideals seem to
elude you.


mxh

<snip>
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 7:10:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23bgdxP%23hFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:76vAe.44714$rb6.21374@lakeread07...
>>
>> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:eAoE$RghFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
>>> Image
>>> Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your Windows
>>> partition. You can also restore the complete Windows partition/drive.
>>>
>>> Please note that True Image does NOT allow you to do this single file
>>> restore on the Windows partition. With TI it is all or nothing.
>>
>> Not true. You can easily restore single files on any partition with
>> Acronis.
>>
>> Feature list from www.acronis.com :
>>
>> Key features:
>>
>>
>> Online system disk backup and instant bare-metal system restore
>>
>>
>> Restore individual files and folders
>>
>>
>> Integrated compression and password protection
>>
>>
>> Disk imaging and disk cloning
>>
>>
>> Incremental disk backup and disk backup image verification
>>
>>
>> Acronis Secure Zone and Acronis Startup Recovery Manager
>>
>
> Can TI create an image back up to a networked drive? Also can TI restore
> the complete image from a networked drive?
>

Yes, it can do both from within windows or via the boot CD.

mxh
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 7:10:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JyeBe.44862$rb6.7447@lakeread07...
>
> "WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23bgdxP%23hFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> "mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:76vAe.44714$rb6.21374@lakeread07...
>>>
>>> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:eAoE$RghFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>> Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the
>>>> Ghost Image
>>>> Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your
>>>> Windows
>>>> partition. You can also restore the complete Windows
>>>> partition/drive.
>>>>
>>>> Please note that True Image does NOT allow you to do this single
>>>> file
>>>> restore on the Windows partition. With TI it is all or nothing.
>>>
>>> Not true. You can easily restore single files on any partition with
>>> Acronis.
>>>
>>> Feature list from www.acronis.com :
>>>
>>> Key features:
>>>
>>>
>>> Online system disk backup and instant bare-metal system restore
>>>
>>>
>>> Restore individual files and folders
>>>
>>>
>>> Integrated compression and password protection
>>>
>>>
>>> Disk imaging and disk cloning
>>>
>>>
>>> Incremental disk backup and disk backup image verification
>>>
>>>
>>> Acronis Secure Zone and Acronis Startup Recovery Manager
>>>
>>
>> Can TI create an image back up to a networked drive? Also can TI
>> restore the complete image from a networked drive?
>>
>
> Yes, it can do both from within windows or via the boot CD.
>


Thanks.

--
William
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 9:41:06 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

You are beating a horse that is going no where. True Image "does not" allow
you to restore single files that are in use, either while booted up within
Windows, or while booted up from the T.I. recovery CD.

Ghost 9.0 does. All a person has to do is read the help that comes with
Ghost to find out how to do this.

Reading all of the True Image help available is not going to tell
people/users how to do what can not be done.

You were kind enough to do so, with a bit of prodding. In your initial post
to me you said it could be done, but didn't say how to do it.

I responded with "If you have found a way to do this, please post your
methodology here for everyone to see."

If you take offence at that remark you need to toughen up a bit!


--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

"mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t1eBe.44861$rb6.30750@lakeread07...
>
> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:uVdS2$0hFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> That is not "exactly" restoring a file with True Image but thank you for
>> posting the information. As the procedure is NOT an integral part of True
>> Image, and requires use of other programs, others would not have likely
>> figured it out.
>>
>> As I have stated, Ghost does this natively from within the program. No
>> extra steps needed.
>>
>> As for my challenge, it did get you to post what you were only obliquely
>> alluding to earlier, so others may have benefited.
>
> Is that what you call it? A "challenge". Seemed to be more of an
> antogonistic remark. Perhaps because you are uncomfortable with being
> challenged. From your response, it's obvious that you felt the need to
> declare righteousness (subjective...).
>
> You do, however, seem to overlook the reality that those "others who would
> not have likely figured it out" would "not have likely" figured out the
> need to restore an individual system file, let alone figured out how to do
> it, even from within (ugh) Ghost v9.
>
> Your "challenge" was indeed antagonistic and provocative, as you well
> know. One would think that, as an MVP, you would subject yourself to a
> higher standard of behavior than has been displayed, but then, one would
> also expect that an MVP would understand usenet etiquette and the reason
> that top posting is frowned on, but apparently not, given that both ideals
> seem to elude you.
>
>
> mxh
>
> <snip>
>
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 9:41:07 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:%237fEUO$hFHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> You are beating a horse that is going no where. True Image "does not"
> allow you to restore single files that are in use, either while booted
> up within Windows, or while booted up from the T.I. recovery CD.
>
> Ghost 9.0 does. All a person has to do is read the help that comes
> with Ghost to find out how to do this.
>
> Reading all of the True Image help available is not going to tell
> people/users how to do what can not be done.
>
> You were kind enough to do so, with a bit of prodding. In your initial
> post to me you said it could be done, but didn't say how to do it.
>
> I responded with "If you have found a way to do this, please post your
> methodology here for everyone to see."
>
> If you take offence at that remark you need to toughen up a bit!
>
>

I certainly will not use TI because I do not want to spend an half hour
to restore one file if I understand mhx correctly. And if I remember
right, you did a test with NG and TI in the past. There was something
about the pagefile I didn't like with the TI results or maybe it was how
they restored the backup image. If you still have a copy of the test
could you email me a copy.

bcrawfordjr (remove) at hotmail . com

--
William
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 1:34:03 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%237fEUO$hFHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> You are beating a horse that is going no where. True Image "does not"
> allow you to restore single files that are in use, either while booted up
> within Windows, or while booted up from the T.I. recovery CD.


> Ghost 9.0 does. All a person has to do is read the help that comes with
> Ghost to find out how to do this.

But you are assuming that such documentation is easily grasped by all, which
of course is false. The average user would have trouble with the concept of
imaging, let alone the implementation of such.

> Reading all of the True Image help available is not going to tell
> people/users how to do what can not be done.
>
> You were kind enough to do so, with a bit of prodding. In your initial
> post to me you said it could be done, but didn't say how to do it.

Actually, you said:

"Please note that True Image does NOT allow you to do this single file
restore on the Windows partition. With TI it is all or nothing."

But of course, there *are* other choices, as I have shown.


> I responded with "If you have found a way to do this, please post your
> methodology here for everyone to see."

And so I did. It didn't take a lot of thought.

> If you take offence at that remark you need to toughen up a bit!

I initially was unaware that TI couldn't do it, but once you became prissy,
I checked and found out it couldn't. Of course, it was easy enough to
overwrite the file from DOS or BPE. I suppose Acronis could add it in the
future without much effort, but even if they didn't, it wouldn't sway my
opinion regarding Ghost 9, and I was an avid Ghost user for many years.

That all changed when Norton, recognizing that (even though they were the
industry leader at one time) they were losing sales, bought into drive image
and made it into that wonderful systemically bloated product that it is
today.
Of course, everyone has their opinions, which is why, I suppose, Norton is
still (incomprehensibly) in business.

However, as should be obvious, my objection was not directed toward your
endorsement of Ghost (as is your right), but rather your tone. Prissy is as
prissy does...

mxh



>
> Quote from: George Ankner
> "If you knew as much as you thought you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"
>
> "mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:t1eBe.44861$rb6.30750@lakeread07...
>>
>> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:uVdS2$0hFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> That is not "exactly" restoring a file with True Image but thank you for
>>> posting the information. As the procedure is NOT an integral part of
>>> True Image, and requires use of other programs, others would not have
>>> likely figured it out.
>>>
>>> As I have stated, Ghost does this natively from within the program. No
>>> extra steps needed.
>>>
>>> As for my challenge, it did get you to post what you were only obliquely
>>> alluding to earlier, so others may have benefited.
>>
>> Is that what you call it? A "challenge". Seemed to be more of an
>> antogonistic remark. Perhaps because you are uncomfortable with being
>> challenged. From your response, it's obvious that you felt the need to
>> declare righteousness (subjective...).
>>
>> You do, however, seem to overlook the reality that those "others who
>> would not have likely figured it out" would "not have likely" figured out
>> the need to restore an individual system file, let alone figured out how
>> to do it, even from within (ugh) Ghost v9.
>>
>> Your "challenge" was indeed antagonistic and provocative, as you well
>> know. One would think that, as an MVP, you would subject yourself to a
>> higher standard of behavior than has been displayed, but then, one would
>> also expect that an MVP would understand usenet etiquette and the reason
>> that top posting is frowned on, but apparently not, given that both
>> ideals seem to elude you.
>>
>>
>> mxh
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 1:57:32 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uusGsk$hFHA.3164@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:%237fEUO$hFHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> You are beating a horse that is going no where. True Image "does not"
>> allow you to restore single files that are in use, either while booted up
>> within Windows, or while booted up from the T.I. recovery CD.
>>
>> Ghost 9.0 does. All a person has to do is read the help that comes with
>> Ghost to find out how to do this.
>>
>> Reading all of the True Image help available is not going to tell
>> people/users how to do what can not be done.
>>
>> You were kind enough to do so, with a bit of prodding. In your initial
>> post to me you said it could be done, but didn't say how to do it.
>>
>> I responded with "If you have found a way to do this, please post your
>> methodology here for everyone to see."
>>
>> If you take offence at that remark you need to toughen up a bit!
>>
>>
>
> I certainly will not use TI because I do not want to spend an half hour to
> restore one file if I understand mhx correctly.

It's not quite as complicated as it might seem, even for the uninitiated. It
took about 3 mins for me to accomplish a system file overwrite. Also, you
can bet that Acronis will add this to a future build.
Acronis is very stable. I can't say the same for *any* Norton products
(until v9, Ghost was *great*!). The problem with Ghost 9 (as with all Norton
products [they used to be the best]) is that every product they make is
systemically unstable on *many* systems.

System crashes, freeze ups and app crashes are common on machines using
Norton products. Check around. you'll find that a large percentage of those
who are advanced computer users will tell you the same thing.

> And if I remember right, you did a test with NG and TI in the past. There
> was something about the pagefile I didn't like with the TI results

One feature I like is that TI doesn't image the page file, which makes the
image that much smaller.

You could download the trial version of both products (if Ghost 9 has a
trail) and decide for yourself. You may find that Ghost is stable on your
machine. The point I would like to make is: don't let the inability to
overwrite a single system file at this point in time make your decision for
you. Until Acronis institutes suich an ability, there are ways around that
(if you ever have need to copy an individual system file...).


mxh

> or maybe it was how they restored the backup image. If you still have a
> copy of the test could you email me a copy.
>
> bcrawfordjr (remove) at hotmail . com
>
> --
> William
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 1:57:33 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iwkBe.44885$rb6.38515@lakeread07...
>

<snip>

> Acronis is very stable. I can't say the same for *any* Norton products
> (until v9, Ghost was *great*!). The problem with Ghost 9 (as with all
> Norton products [they used to be the best]) is that every product they
> make is systemically unstable on *many* systems.
>
> System crashes, freeze ups and app crashes are common on machines
> using Norton products. Check around. you'll find that a large
> percentage of those who are advanced computer users will tell you the
> same thing.
>

I am an advance user, and with my experience with customers who like
Norton products and have problems are generally due to systems infected
with something or the OS is not running properly. I have hardly seen any
Norton products having problems being installed after a clean install of
the OS and the user taking the proper care of their system.

One thing I find with Norton Security products are resource hogs, I do
not find this with Ghost or Partition Magic.

I do not use NIS or NAV because of the resource issue. I only use Ghost
and Partition Magic.

--
William
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 2:39:43 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

LOL (-:

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

"mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hakBe.44883$rb6.7874@lakeread07...
>
> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:%237fEUO$hFHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> You are beating a horse that is going no where. True Image "does not"
>> allow you to restore single files that are in use, either while booted up
>> within Windows, or while booted up from the T.I. recovery CD.
>
>
>> Ghost 9.0 does. All a person has to do is read the help that comes with
>> Ghost to find out how to do this.
>
> But you are assuming that such documentation is easily grasped by all,
> which of course is false. The average user would have trouble with the
> concept of imaging, let alone the implementation of such.
>
>> Reading all of the True Image help available is not going to tell
>> people/users how to do what can not be done.
>>
>> You were kind enough to do so, with a bit of prodding. In your initial
>> post to me you said it could be done, but didn't say how to do it.
>
> Actually, you said:
>
> "Please note that True Image does NOT allow you to do this single file
> restore on the Windows partition. With TI it is all or nothing."
>
> But of course, there *are* other choices, as I have shown.
>
>
>> I responded with "If you have found a way to do this, please post your
>> methodology here for everyone to see."
>
> And so I did. It didn't take a lot of thought.
>
>> If you take offence at that remark you need to toughen up a bit!
>
> I initially was unaware that TI couldn't do it, but once you became
> prissy, I checked and found out it couldn't. Of course, it was easy enough
> to overwrite the file from DOS or BPE. I suppose Acronis could add it in
> the future without much effort, but even if they didn't, it wouldn't sway
> my opinion regarding Ghost 9, and I was an avid Ghost user for many years.
>
> That all changed when Norton, recognizing that (even though they were the
> industry leader at one time) they were losing sales, bought into drive
> image and made it into that wonderful systemically bloated product that it
> is today.
> Of course, everyone has their opinions, which is why, I suppose, Norton is
> still (incomprehensibly) in business.
>
> However, as should be obvious, my objection was not directed toward your
> endorsement of Ghost (as is your right), but rather your tone. Prissy is
> as prissy does...
>
> mxh
>
>
>
>>
>> Quote from: George Ankner
>> "If you knew as much as you thought you know,
>> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"
>>
>> "mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:t1eBe.44861$rb6.30750@lakeread07...
>>>
>>> "Richard Urban [MVP]" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:uVdS2$0hFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>> That is not "exactly" restoring a file with True Image but thank you
>>>> for posting the information. As the procedure is NOT an integral part
>>>> of True Image, and requires use of other programs, others would not
>>>> have likely figured it out.
>>>>
>>>> As I have stated, Ghost does this natively from within the program. No
>>>> extra steps needed.
>>>>
>>>> As for my challenge, it did get you to post what you were only
>>>> obliquely alluding to earlier, so others may have benefited.
>>>
>>> Is that what you call it? A "challenge". Seemed to be more of an
>>> antogonistic remark. Perhaps because you are uncomfortable with being
>>> challenged. From your response, it's obvious that you felt the need to
>>> declare righteousness (subjective...).
>>>
>>> You do, however, seem to overlook the reality that those "others who
>>> would not have likely figured it out" would "not have likely" figured
>>> out the need to restore an individual system file, let alone figured out
>>> how to do it, even from within (ugh) Ghost v9.
>>>
>>> Your "challenge" was indeed antagonistic and provocative, as you well
>>> know. One would think that, as an MVP, you would subject yourself to a
>>> higher standard of behavior than has been displayed, but then, one would
>>> also expect that an MVP would understand usenet etiquette and the reason
>>> that top posting is frowned on, but apparently not, given that both
>>> ideals seem to elude you.
>>>
>>>
>>> mxh
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 5:24:24 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:12:12 +0100, "Gordon"
<gordon@gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore individual
>files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an incremental backup
>program might be of more use?
>
Acronis does.
--
Top 10 Conservative Idiots:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 10:55:07 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"WTC" <bcrawfordjr(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23IfxhVCiFHA.2444@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "mxh" <jm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:iwkBe.44885$rb6.38515@lakeread07...
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>> Acronis is very stable. I can't say the same for *any* Norton products
>> (until v9, Ghost was *great*!). The problem with Ghost 9 (as with all
>> Norton products [they used to be the best]) is that every product they
>> make is systemically unstable on *many* systems.
>>
>> System crashes, freeze ups and app crashes are common on machines using
>> Norton products. Check around. you'll find that a large percentage of
>> those who are advanced computer users will tell you the same thing.
>>
>
> I am an advance user, and with my experience with customers who like
> Norton products and have problems are generally due to systems infected
> with something or the OS is not running properly. I have hardly seen any
> Norton products having problems being installed after a clean install of
> the OS and the user taking the proper care of their system.
>
> One thing I find with Norton Security products are resource hogs, I do not
> find this with Ghost or Partition Magic.
>
> I do not use NIS or NAV because of the resource issue. I only use Ghost
> and Partition Magic.
>
> --
> William


Fair enough.

mxh
!