recommandations for a reliable image?

[Fridhelm Neubauer]

Hi NG,
Which software can do an exact image of my drive like Ghost 2003 did? I
tried Ghost9 but I don't like it because it runs in windows.
All want is image my drives to another drive/partition and burn images
directly to DVD. What program do you recommend?
Thanks for your suggestions.

 

[Anna]

Hi NG,
Which software can do an exact image of my drive like Ghost 2003 did? I
tried Ghost9 but I don't like it because it runs in windows.
All want is image my drives to another drive/partition and burn images
directly to DVD. What program do you recommend?
Thanks for your suggestions.

Fridhelm:
Since you obviously have Ghost 2003, why not use it to create direct
disk-to-disk clones? As you apparently know, you can use Ghost 2003 to
perform the cloning operation with a Ghost bootable floppy disk (what I
usually use) or a Ghost 2003 bootable CD.
Anna

 

[Ted Zieglar]

The ability of a disc imaging program to run from Windows is considered an
advantage. That's why all the major disc imaging programs work this way.

 

[Anna]

The ability of a disc imaging program to run from Windows is considered an
advantage. That's why all the major disc imaging programs work this way.

Ted:
It may be for some Ted, but it's not for me, the people I work with, nor
most of our clients who are using a disk imaging program such as Ghost 2003.
By & large we find the simplicity, straightforwardness, and effectiveness of
using a bootable floppy disk or bootable CD easily created by the disk
imaging program more to our liking. And then there's the portability aspects
advantage of using that media in lieu of the Windows interface.

Understand I've no quarrel with those users who prefer the Windows GUI when
using these types of programs. If it suits them, fine; by all means use it.
The important thing, as I think we both agree, is to use the disk imaging
process in a routine & systematic way for comprehensive backup purposes .
But it's interesting to note that in my experience virtually every user to
whom we've demonstrated the disk-to-disk cloning process using either type
of the bootable media I've previously mentioned has embraced this technique
in preference to using the Windows interface.
Anna

 

[bxf]

But it's interesting to note that in my experience virtually every user to
whom we've demonstrated the disk-to-disk cloning process using either type
of the bootable media I've previously mentioned has embraced this technique
in preference to using the Windows interface.

And this demonstration you provided was not accompanied by any comments
expressing YOUR preference/bias?

I also used to express a preference for Ghost 2003 because it enabled
me to create a single bootable DVD that I could use to restore my C
drive to a known state in less than 15 minutes. This, of course,
ignores the massive effort it took to locate the required DOS USB2
drivers and then configure CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT to get the damn
program to work. It also ignores the fact that Ghost asks you stupid
questions that imply understanding of DOS. But OK, once I got it to
work, I liked it.

Now, having tried both Ghost 2003 and True Image 8, if I were doing a
demonstration of the two, I would make comments like:

- With TI, you don't have to reboot twice to make your backup, as you
do with Ghost (once into DOS, once back to Windows).
- Look here at how easy it is to understand the TI interface, as
opposed to Ghost asking you questions that you don't understand.
- You can even make incremental images with TI, which save you backup
time.
- You can make a bootable TI CD which you can use in the event you need
to restore, just like with Ghost. ANd you can restore even if you can't
start Windows.

Now, what Ghost-oriented sales pitch did you give during your
demonstration?

 

[Anna]

And this demonstration you provided was not accompanied by any comments
expressing YOUR preference/bias?

Of course I expressed MY preference! Why in the world would I be promoting
this technique if I didn't prefer it? Does that make my preference invalid?

"bxf" continues...

I also used to express a preference for Ghost 2003 because it enabled
me to create a single bootable DVD that I could use to restore my C
drive to a known state in less than 15 minutes. This, of course,
ignores the massive effort it took to locate the required DOS USB2
drivers and then configure CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT to get the damn
program to work. It also ignores the fact that Ghost asks you stupid
questions that imply understanding of DOS. But OK, once I got it to
work, I liked it.

I have no idea of what you're talking about. We, my associates, and our
clients use the Ghost 2003 program for basically one purpose. And that is to
create *direct* disk-to-disk clones to provide a near failsafe backup
system. We do *not* use that program to create disk images on removable
media such as DVDs. We directly clone the contents of one HD to another HD
(internal or external). The process (using the aforementioned Ghost bootable
floppy disk or Ghost bootable CD) is simple, straightforward, reasonably
quick, and effective. There's *no* need in this process to "locate the
required DOS USB2
drivers and then configure CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT to get the ****
program to work." I've taught 10 year olds to effectively use this Ghost
cloning process I've described in less time than their age in years.


Bill goes on...

Now, having tried both Ghost 2003 and True Image 8, if I were doing a
demonstration of the two, I would make comments like:

- With TI, you don't have to reboot twice to make your backup, as you
do with Ghost (once into DOS, once back to Windows).
- Look here at how easy it is to understand the TI interface, as
opposed to Ghost asking you questions that you don't understand.
- You can even make incremental images with TI, which save you backup
time.
- You can make a bootable TI CD which you can use in the event you need
to restore, just like with Ghost. ANd you can restore even if you can't
start Windows.

Now, what Ghost-oriented sales pitch did you give during your
demonstration?

Bill:
First of all I've no major problems with the Acronis True Image program
We've been using it for the past few months so as to compare it with the
Ghost 2003 program. It does have some attractive features -- chiefly that
its cloning speed (by & large) is faster than that of Ghost. So that's a
real plus for us and I'm sure other users. Once again, we prefer to use the
ATI program for *direct* disk-to-disk cloning of one HD to another HD for
the reason I noted above. Please understand this. Again, we are *not*
interested in creating disk images on removable media. We are *not*
interested in "incremental" backups. Our sole objective is to maintain
routine & systematic near-failsafe backups of the user's working HD. We have
found that we can achieve that objective through the *direct* disk-to-disk
cloning process.

As in the Ghost program, we prefer to work with a bootable CD created by the
Acronis program - what Acronis calls its "Bootable Rescue Media".
(Unfortunately - for us - unlike the Ghost program, you cannot create a
*single* bootable floppy disk in the Acronis program to undertake the disk
cloning process). Another negative - although admittedly it's not terribly
important to us - is that you cannot *directly* clone individual partitions
from one disk to another with the ATI program, unlike the Ghost program
which allows you to do so with no problem.

I do find the Acronis program easy to use along the lines I have described.
I've no problem or quarrel with anyone using that program in preference to
the Ghost program. But bear in mind that the OP was asking about the *Ghost*
program, was he not?

I will not comment on your final snide comment.
Anna

 

[bxf]

Of course I expressed MY preference! Why in the world would I be promoting
this technique if I didn't prefer it? Does that make my preference invalid?

I was merely trying to point out that a preference expressed after a
demonstration that is almost a sales pitch is not necessarily based on
all available facts.

"bxf" continues...

I have no idea of what you're talking about. We, my associates, and our
clients use the Ghost 2003 program for basically one purpose. And that is to
create *direct* disk-to-disk clones to provide a near failsafe backup
system. We do *not* use that program to create disk images on removable
media such as DVDs. We directly clone the contents of one HD to another HD
(internal or external). The process (using the aforementioned Ghost bootable
floppy disk or Ghost bootable CD) is simple, straightforward, reasonably
quick, and effective. There's *no* need in this process to "locate the
required DOS USB2
drivers and then configure CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT to get the ****
program to work." I've taught 10 year olds to effectively use this Ghost
cloning process I've described in less time than their age in years.

Then this explains why you don't hold a grudge against this product.
Google for the keywords you just repeated and you will see that I am
not alone in having suffered through the process. I almost made a
pledge to dedicate my life to badmouth this product. I did not follow
up on this thought, but you gave me an an opportunity Still, I
admit that I got to like the process once I managed to make it work.

Bill goes on...

Bill:
First of all I've no major problems with the Acronis True Image program
We've been using it for the past few months so as to compare it with the
Ghost 2003 program. It does have some attractive features -- chiefly that
its cloning speed (by & large) is faster than that of Ghost. So that's a
real plus for us and I'm sure other users. Once again, we prefer to use the
ATI program for *direct* disk-to-disk cloning of one HD to another HD for
the reason I noted above. Please understand this. Again, we are *not*
interested in creating disk images on removable media. We are *not*
interested in "incremental" backups. Our sole objective is to maintain
routine & systematic near-failsafe backups of the user's working HD. We have
found that we can achieve that objective through the *direct* disk-to-disk
cloning process.

Well, again, the nature of your requirements fortunately made it
unnecessary for you to experience the pains I and others had had to
undergo.

As in the Ghost program, we prefer to work with a bootable CD created by the
Acronis program - what Acronis calls its "Bootable Rescue Media".
(Unfortunately - for us - unlike the Ghost program, you cannot create a
*single* bootable floppy disk in the Acronis program to undertake the disk
cloning process).

Not to dispute what you say, but I don't quite understand this. I can
boot from a CD and perform various ATI functions, no? I can't use a
floppy (which I don't have)?

Another negative - although admittedly it's not terribly
important to us - is that you cannot *directly* clone individual partitions
from one disk to another with the ATI program, unlike the Ghost program
which allows you to do so with no problem.

I do find the Acronis program easy to use along the lines I have described.
I've no problem or quarrel with anyone using that program in preference to
the Ghost program. But bear in mind that the OP was asking about the *Ghost*
program, was he not?

I will not comment on your final snide comment.

Finally, I would like to say that it was not really my intention to
offend. Oh, I suppose I could have been more subtle, but decided to use
a bit of sarcasm to make a point. I apologise for having offended you.
The "snide remark" to which you refer was, again, just making the point
that a preference is not necessarily that, if the demonstration was
accompanied by a sales pitch.

 

[Anna]

I was merely trying to point out that a preference expressed after a
demonstration that is almost a sales pitch is not necessarily based on
all available facts.


Then this explains why you don't hold a grudge against this product.
Google for the keywords you just repeated and you will see that I am
not alone in having suffered through the process. I almost made a
pledge to dedicate my life to badmouth this product. I did not follow
up on this thought, but you gave me an an opportunity Still, I
admit that I got to like the process once I managed to make it work.


Well, again, the nature of your requirements fortunately made it
unnecessary for you to experience the pains I and others had had to
undergo.


Not to dispute what you say, but I don't quite understand this. I can
boot from a CD and perform various ATI functions, no? I can't use a
floppy (which I don't have)?


Finally, I would like to say that it was not really my intention to
offend. Oh, I suppose I could have been more subtle, but decided to use
a bit of sarcasm to make a point. I apologise for having offended you.
The "snide remark" to which you refer was, again, just making the point
that a preference is not necessarily that, if the demonstration was
accompanied by a sales pitch.

Bill:
Let's end this thread which is fast going from the sublime to the
ridiculous. I accept your apology if indeed it *is* an apology. But I
honestly don't understand why you continually refer to my "demonstration",
i.e., how to use the Ghost 2003 program, as some sort of "sales pitch". I'm
not selling anything, least of all the Ghost program. I'm not employed by
Symantec. I receive no remuneration from any source because I successfully
use the Ghost 2003 program and have shown others how to do the same. Why do
you refer to this, in an obvious perjorative way, as a "sales pitch"?

I really don't know what more I can add to what I've previously stated re my
use of the Ghost 2003 program for the purposes I put the program to, other
than provide you (and others who might be interested) in step-by-step
instructions for using the program along the lines I have described. I've
done so before and will again should anyone, including yourself, be
interested. And, by the way, I can do the same for the Acronis program. But
ask me nice.
Anna

 

[bxf]

I really don't know what more I can add to what I've previously stated re my
use of the Ghost 2003 program for the purposes I put the program to, other
than provide you (and others who might be interested) in step-by-step
instructions for using the program along the lines I have described. I've
done so before and will again should anyone, including yourself, be
interested. And, by the way, I can do the same for the Acronis program. But
ask me nice.

It was not my intention to get into a fight. Rather, I wanted to point
out Ghost 2003's deficiencies, admittedly because of a grudge I've
developed in the process of making it work. In order to do that, I had
to counter your statement that almost everybody to whom you've
demonstrated the options had preferred Ghost. Hence my references to
the likelihood of a biased demonstration, which is likely to influence
the audience's preference.

I agree, let's not have this get out of hand. I admit my approach had
an offensive tone, and that perhaps I shuld have been clearer that my
negative attitude was aimed at Ghost, not at you.

 

[Joe Rom King]

Anna,

What do you think about using ASR to back up the system partition in
comparison to Ghost 2003, (as a method of making sure we can recover
from server fatal crash)?

For the data, we use another real GFS backup procedure.

We are considering of making a weekly backup of the system partition
for each of the several servers in our organization using ASR, and I
was interested to understand if this is a good option. Most of the
servers system partitions are 20GB or less, and we are thinking of
backing them up into external USB disk

Thanks in Advance



Joe

 

[Guest]

DriveCopy

see electronicscomputing.com

 

[Anna]

Anna,

What do you think about using ASR to back up the system partition in
comparison to Ghost 2003, (as a method of making sure we can recover
from server fatal crash)?

For the data, we use another real GFS backup procedure.

We are considering of making a weekly backup of the system partition
for each of the several servers in our organization using ASR, and I
was interested to understand if this is a good option. Most of the
servers system partitions are 20GB or less, and we are thinking of
backing them up into external USB disk

Thanks in Advance
Joe

Joe:
It's a viable alternative to the disk imaging programs such as the ones
we've already mentioned. And where a server is involved it may be even a
better alternative. For standalone machines, we prefer the simplicity &
straightforwardness of the disk-cloning programs such as Ghost (most
especially the 2003 version - I see Symantec has just released a version 10,
but we haven't used it) and Acronis True Image. Needless to say, before
embarking on the implementation of the ASR system you should first use the
net and other resources to research the advantages & disadvantages re the
ASR system in comparison to other comprehensive backup programs. Assuming
you do go that route, it will be interesting to me, and I'm sure others, of
your experience. And perhaps other users of ASR will add their experiences
in using that system.
Anna

 

[Anna]

It was not my intention to get into a fight. Rather, I wanted to point
out Ghost 2003's deficiencies, admittedly because of a grudge I've
developed in the process of making it work. In order to do that, I had
to counter your statement that almost everybody to whom you've
demonstrated the options had preferred Ghost. Hence my references to
the likelihood of a biased demonstration, which is likely to influence
the audience's preference.

I agree, let's not have this get out of hand. I admit my approach had
an offensive tone, and that perhaps I shuld have been clearer that my
negative attitude was aimed at Ghost, not at you.

Bill:
All I can say (hopefully in merciful conclusion to this thread) is that as
far as I'm concerned Ghost 2003 has *no* basic deficiencies when it comes to
what we've been discussing, i.e., the direct cloning of the contents of one
HD to another HD using a Ghost 2003 bootable floppy disk or bootable CD. As
I've probably repeated ad nauseam by now - the process is simple,
straightforward, reasonably quick, and most of all - effective. Whatever
significant problems we have encountered with that program have been
invariably due to defective or misconfigured drives, source disk corruption,
and the most common problem of all - user error. Rarely have we experienced
any problems involving the program per se.

In one of the computer repair shops in which I worked, there was a sign on
the wall (not visible to any of our customers, of course) that read...
THE MAJOR PROBLEM OF A COMPUTER IS SITTING IN FRONT OF THE KEYBOARD.
Anna

 

[bxf]

In one of the computer repair shops in which I worked, there was a sign on
the wall (not visible to any of our customers, of course) that read...
THE MAJOR PROBLEM OF A COMPUTER IS SITTING IN FRONT OF THE KEYBOARD.

Probably at least some truth in the above, which is why I pointed out
earlier that I am not alone in having had the problems I described.
Still in doubt? Try to use Ghost 2003 to image a partition to an
external USB device, especially a DVD drive. Unless Symantec have fixed
something recently, I expect you'll be entertaining yourself for some
time.

Oh, by the way, as a 35-year plus software/programming troubleshooter
(mainframes, obviously), freelancing for over 25 years, I have some
idea of how to approach problem solving.

 

[Anna]

Probably at least some truth in the above, which is why I pointed out
earlier that I am not alone in having had the problems I described.
Still in doubt? Try to use Ghost 2003 to image a partition to an
external USB device, especially a DVD drive. Unless Symantec have fixed
something recently, I expect you'll be entertaining yourself for some
time.

Oh, by the way, as a 35-year plus software/programming troubleshooter
(mainframes, obviously), freelancing for over 25 years, I have some
idea of how to approach problem solving.

Good grief, how long is this to go on?

Oh well, let me respond to your latest problem with Ghost 2003. We've been
using the Ghost 2003 program now for nearly the past four years. While I
haven't kept count, I'm sure I've personally or directly participated in
the cloning of hundreds, repeat - hundreds of hard drives. We continue to
routinely clone the contents of internal HDs to external ones - both USB &
Firewire, including DVD external drives. Surely I've cloned scores of
different makes & models of those external devices. And, I might add, the
re:cloning of the contents of those external devices to internal drives for
restoration purposes. And we do so without any problems inherent in the
Ghost program. Again, I emphasize Bill that we are about *direct*
disk-to-disk cloning.

There *was* a problem with the Ghost 2003 program early on with respect to
cloning the contents of internal drives to certain USB external hard drives.
Symantec released a patch to correct this problem (as best as I can recall)
somewhere around May, 2003. The present build is Ghost 2003.793 and it's the
one users should be using.

Bill, I've never questioned your credentials. That has certainly not been
the point here in our discussion. You've related your experiences with the
program; I've related mine.
Anna

 

[Joe Rom King]

Anna,

OK, I have read some about ASR and it seems very interesting, here are
my findings, and I would love people to comment.

ASR can backup to any disk including internal, USB attached or
networked. It does require a floppy disk for holding some configuration
information. So from this point is seems ideal, as our system
partitions are way bigger than 4GB, we anyway need hard disk to be the
backup media, and we do not want the hassle of replacing DVDs/CDs. The
backup can be done from within Windows, which is a plus, since we do
not have to shut the server down.

During restore, you have to start normal installation from the Windows
installation disk, then if this is a new hard disk, you can easily
partition and format it (even if this is a new RAID) using the Windows
installation. If you changed hard disk or any other hardware that needs
a new driver, you are given the chance to load the new driver. At some
point after windows was partially installed and it can "see" all the
drive, you hit F2 and start the recovery from the ASR backup file.

This also sound quite appealing, as it allows flexibility in HW
changes, and over all seems quiet trivial.

I tried the backup part, and it is trivial, a10GB partition with 9GB
data backed up to USB disk consumed the same size and 23 minutes. I did
not try the restore yet.


One minor issue I can think of is whether it is necessary to activate
the new installation.

Another issue is that each backup has to be a full backup. It is not
that critical since we are going to save only two weekly ASR backup.
That means if we have a 20GB partition, we need 40GB backup space. I
guess if it could take incremental backups, we would take alternating
full and incremental backup, reducing the total space to some 24GB,
which is not such a big difference.

Another issue is that ASR is not compressed, so if a 8GB partition has
7GB, the backup will be close to 7GB. Also noticed that ASR can not be
automated.

Please anybody, comment as how other image solution compares to ASR
along above mentioned comments.

Thanks
Joe