Switching From Norton Ghost 2003 to Norton Ghost 9.0

[mg]

Since my new computer uses SATA drives, after years of faithful,
dependable service, I think I'm going to have to abandon Norton Ghost
2003 and switch to something else. I do have a valid copy of Norton
Ghost 9.0 which I've never used. Will Norton Ghost function dependable
with SATA drives? Will it work for copying a SATA drive to a PATA
drive and vice versa?

 

[smlunatick]

Since my new computer uses SATA drives, after years of faithful,
dependable service, I think I'm going to have to abandon Norton Ghost
2003 and switch to something else. I do have a valid copy of Norton
Ghost 9.0 which I've never used. Will Norton Ghost function dependable
with SATA drives? Will it work for copying a SATA drive to a PATA
drive and vice versa?

Not sure since Ghost is not a Microsoft product. Have you checked
with Symantec?

 

[Martin C]

Not sure why you think you need to change! Are you having a problem of some
sort using Ghost 2003. I have a PC with a SATA drive as the main drive and
have had no problems using Ghost 2003.

Where I *have* had a problem is with getting Ghost 2003 to work with an
external HDD. It is for that reason I have moved over to using Acronis.

What exactly is your problem with using Ghost 2003?

Martin

 

[Anna]

Not sure why you think you need to change! Are you having a problem of
some sort using Ghost 2003. I have a PC with a SATA drive as the main
drive and have had no problems using Ghost 2003.

Where I *have* had a problem is with getting Ghost 2003 to work with an
external HDD. It is for that reason I have moved over to using Acronis.

What exactly is your problem with using Ghost 2003?

Martin

mg:
Our experience with Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 (which we used for a
considerable number of years) parallels that of Martin C. with respect to
using that program with both PATA & SATA HDDs. Seems to work just fine for
basic disk-to-disk cloning even when interchanging the different types.

We used Ghost 2003 *exclusively* for disk-to-disk cloning purposes using
either the Ghost 2003 bootable floppy disk or bootable CD. We rarely, if
ever, used Ghost 2003 with the Windows GUI environment because of various
problems we ran into when using the Windows GUI interface.

Aside to Martin...
It's true that earlier versions of the Ghost 2003 program did have problems
with the disk-cloning process where a USB external HDD was involved but (at
least based on our extensive experience with that program) that was
corrected with the latest "build" 793 (which turned out to be the final
build). So I don't know if that might have been the cause of your problem
with USBEHDs in that you were working with an earlier "build". AFAIK,
Symantec no longer supports the Ghost 2003 version and that build is no
longer available.

So "mg"...
If you're basically satisfied with your Ghost 2003 program give it a try
with your current system and see if it meets your needs. BTW, we were less
than thrilled with both the Ghost versions 9 & 10 and gave up using those
versions some time ago. We haven't worked with Symantec's latest version of
Ghost.

Incidentally, our favorite disk-cloning program which we now use exclusively
is Casper 4. See http://www.fssdev.com for info on the program - there's a
trial version (somewhat crippled) that's available. Acronis True Image -
mentioned by Martin - also has a trial version available.
Anna

 

[mg]

Not sure why you think you need to change! Are you having a problem of some
sort using Ghost 2003. I have a PC with a SATA drive as the main drive and
have had no problems using Ghost 2003.

Where I *have* had a problem is with getting Ghost 2003 to work with an
external HDD. It is for that reason I have moved over to using Acronis.

What exactly is your problem with using Ghost 2003?

I'm going to be working on a friend's computer on Monday that requires
cloning a SATA HD to a PATA HD. It's been a couple of years ago, but
it does seem like I had trouble with this using Ghost 2003, once
before when mixing drive types. My Ghost 2003, program version
2003.775, based on Anna's comments, is out of date. So, maybe that's
my problem. I dunno. Perhaps I'll give it a try using a floppy,
anyway.

I understand Seagate has some cloning software build into their
formatting software. Maybe I'll try that or maybe I'll try the Casper
4 software that Anna recommended.

 

[mg]

mg:
Our experience with Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 (which we used for a
considerable number of years) parallels that of Martin C. with respect to
using that program with both PATA & SATA HDDs. Seems to work just fine for
basic disk-to-disk cloning even when interchanging the different types.

We used Ghost 2003 *exclusively* for disk-to-disk cloning purposes using
either the Ghost 2003 bootable floppy disk or bootable CD. We rarely, if
ever, used Ghost 2003 with the Windows GUI environment because of various
problems we ran into when using the Windows GUI interface.

Aside to Martin...
It's true that earlier versions of the Ghost 2003 program did have problems
with the disk-cloning process where a USB external HDD was involved but (at
least based on our extensive experience with that program) that was
corrected with the latest "build" 793 (which turned out to be the final
build). So I don't know if that might have been the cause of your problem
with USBEHDs in that you were working with an earlier "build". AFAIK,
Symantec no longer supports the Ghost 2003 version and that build is no
longer available.

So "mg"...
If you're basically satisfied with your Ghost 2003 program give it a try
with your current system and see if it meets your needs. BTW, we were less
than thrilled with both the Ghost versions 9 & 10 and gave up using those
versions some time ago. We haven't worked with Symantec's latest version of
Ghost.

Incidentally, our favorite disk-cloning program which we now use exclusively
is Casper 4. Seehttp://www.fssdev.comfor info on the program - there's a
trial version (somewhat crippled) that's available. Acronis True Image -
mentioned by Martin - also has a trial version available.
Anna

Thanks Anna. As luck would have it, both the SATA and PATA drives are
the same size (80 Gb) so the trial version should work for me and I
have downloaded Casper 4 and I'm going to try that.

 

[witan]

Since my new computer uses SATA drives, after years of faithful,
dependable service, I think I'm going to have to abandon Norton Ghost
2003 and switch to something else. I do have a valid copy of Norton
Ghost 9.0 which I've never used. Will Norton Ghost function dependable
with SATA drives? Will it work for copying a SATA drive to a PATA
drive and vice versa?

This is addressed to the Group rather than to the OP alone.
I had raised an earlier query, ""Clonezilla" (GPL software) for
cloning systems", http://groups.google.co.in/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/msg/86d6ebd2e7ad5fc0
The discussion on it veered off into a wrong direction, and I did not
receive the help I was hoping for. On the face of it, Clonezilla
appears to be a very promising tool, and I shall still appreciate
expert opinion on it.

 

[Anna]

Thanks Anna. As luck would have it, both the SATA and PATA drives are
the same size (80 Gb) so the trial version should work for me and I
have downloaded Casper 4 and I'm going to try that.

mg:
First of all I think you're going to be satisfied with the Casper 4 program
should you decide to ultimately purchase it. But I want to make one thing
very clear at the outset as to what I perceive to be the significant
advantage of this program as compared with other disk-cloning programs we've
used in the past, e.g., Acronis True Image, Ghost, among others.

As I have indicated in previous posts re the Casper 4 disk-cloning program,
there is really not much difference between that program and other
disk-cloning programs when using it for the *first* time to clone the
contents of one HDD to another HDD. The time expenditure re the disk-cloning
operation is pretty much the same among all these programs during that
initial (first) disk-cloning operation. True, the Casper 4 program is
extremely easy to use even for an inexperienced user - in our experience
easier & more straightforward to use than any other disk-cloning program
we've worked with. But that is not Casper's supreme advantage to our mind,
as important as that aspect may be.

Its supreme advantage is using the program as a *routine* comprehensive
backup system involving one's day-to-day working HDD - the "source" drive.
The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning program compared
with other disk-cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis
True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create
*incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first)
disk clone. Employing what Casper calls its "SmartClone" technology the
program can create subsequent disk clones of the source HDD usually at a
fraction of the time it takes to create a "full" disk clone. This results in
a decided incentive for the user to undertake frequent complete backups of
his or her system knowing that they can create "incremental" disk clones in
a relatively short period of time. Understand that these "incremental" disk
clones are *full* disk clones - a true copy of the "source" HDD that was
cloned.

So, if a user's *only* interest is undertaking a *one-time affair* to clone
the contents of one HDD to another HDD and is not interested in using the
program as a routine comprehensive backup program, then in our view there is
no unique capability of the Casper 4 program that would recommend it over
other reliable disk-cloning programs.

Re your Ghost 2003 program...

You mentioned in another post that the program is the "775 build" and not
the latest (& final) version - build 793. I would think that your Ghost 2003
program should work with your intended disk-cloning operation involving the
SATA - PATA HDDs particularly if they're both internal HDDs. It might even
work should the destination HDD (be it PATA or SATA) be a USB external HDD.
It's worth a try.

And as you have indicated, again if this is a one-shot deal, you can use the
disk-copying function provided by the manufacturer of one of the hard drives
(the Seagate one you mentioned is presumably a copy of the Acronis program
or based on that program).
Anna

 

[mg]

mg:
First of all I think you're going to be satisfied with the Casper 4 program
should you decide to ultimately purchase it. But I want to make one thing
very clear at the outset as to what I perceive to be the significant
advantage of this program as compared with other disk-cloning programs we've
used in the past, e.g., Acronis True Image, Ghost, among others.

As I have indicated in previous posts re the Casper 4 disk-cloning program,
there is really not much difference between that program and other
disk-cloning programs when using it for the *first* time to clone the
contents of one HDD to another HDD. The time expenditure re the disk-cloning
operation is pretty much the same among all these programs during that
initial (first) disk-cloning operation. True, the Casper 4 program is
extremely easy to use even for an inexperienced user - in our experience
easier & more straightforward to use than any other disk-cloning program
we've worked with. But that is not Casper's supreme advantage to our mind,
as important as that aspect may be.

Its supreme advantage is using the program as a *routine* comprehensive
backup system involving one's day-to-day working HDD - the "source" drive.
The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning program compared
with other disk-cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis
True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create
*incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first)
disk clone. Employing what Casper calls its "SmartClone" technology the
program can create subsequent disk clones of the source HDD usually at a
fraction of the time it takes to create a "full" disk clone. This results in
a decided incentive for the user to undertake frequent complete backups of
his or her system knowing that they can create "incremental" disk clones in
a relatively short period of time. Understand that these "incremental" disk
clones are *full* disk clones - a true copy of the "source" HDD that was
cloned.

So, if a user's *only* interest is undertaking a *one-time affair* to clone
the contents of one HDD to another HDD and is not interested in using the
program as a routine comprehensive backup program, then in our view there is
no unique capability of the Casper 4 program that would recommend it over
other reliable disk-cloning programs.

Re your Ghost 2003 program...

You mentioned in another post that the program is the "775 build" and not
the latest (& final) version - build 793. I would think that your Ghost 2003
program should work with your intended disk-cloning operation involving the
SATA - PATA HDDs particularly if they're both internal HDDs. It might even
work should the destination HDD (be it PATA or SATA) be a USB external HDD.
It's worth a try.

And as you have indicated, again if this is a one-shot deal, you can use the
disk-copying function provided by the manufacturer of one of the hard drives
(the Seagate one you mentioned is presumably a copy of the Acronis program
or based on that program).
Anna

I actually do very little cloning of hard drives, although that's what
I need to do in this case. Typically I use this type of software to
create images on a second hard drive instead. Then if I need to do a
restore, I do it from a floppy. I generally create the first image
after the OS and all updates and all the software and drivers are
installed. At that point I know the system is bug and virus free. Then
I might create a second image a few months later if additional
software is added and I am confident it is virus free. All of my large
files, like music and pictures, etc. are put on the second hard drive.

I don't do incremental backups because doing so can wipe out the only
good C-Drive backup you have, if you happen to pick up a virus or a
bug, etc.

I think that incremental backups would be good for a business computer
that's not connected to the internet and doesn't get very many
software updates, etc. A computer in a doctors or dentists office, for
example, would probably be a good candidate for an incremental backup
system.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Anna, I thought we had concluded that Acronis True Image 11 had similar
capability. But from what you've said below, only Casper does. ??????
You never replied to this, so I don't know.

 

[Anna]

Bill:
I assume that when you refer to "capability" in this context you're
referring to the "incremental clone" capability that I have referred to with
respect to the Casper 4. program.

Assuming that's what we are discussing here...

Casper 4 is a disk-cloning program. It does not have disk-imaging
capability.
Acronis True Image has both disk-cloning & disk-imaging capability.

Casper has the unique ability (at least unique in my experience with
disk-cloning programs) to create "incremental" disk-clones as I have
explained below in some detail. A clone of the source HDD, *not* a
disk-image. A folder-for-folder, file-for-file copy of the entire contents
on the "source" HDD. No "restore" process is needed since the cloned HDD is
a precise copy of the source HDD. As such, it is immediately bootable if
installed as an internal HDD with all its files/folders immediately
accessible. And should the recipient of the disk clone be an *external* SATA
HDD that has SATA-to-SATA connectivity (connected to the PC via a SATA or
eSATA port), then that cloned *external* SATA HDD will be treated by the
system as an *internal* HDD and as such, is bootable.

ATI, like other disk-imaging programs, can create incremental (or
differential) disk images. Incremental disk images, *not* incremental disk
clones. If that capability satisfies the user, fine.

While ATI also has the capability of creating disk-to-disk clones it does
not have (AFAIK) the "incremental disk clone" feature of the Casper 4
program.

Again, as I have tried to explain below, this incremental disk-cloning
capability of the Casper 4 program encourages the user to *frequently* make
comprehensive backups of their day-to-day HDD because they know that each
backup will take only a fraction of the time it would ordinarily take for a
disk-cloning program to "do its work". We have found that this encourages
the user to keep his/her backup of their system on an extremely current
basis.

As I believe we have previously discussed, a disk-imaging program such as
ATI is more appropriate than a disk-cloning program for users who have need
for creating "generational" copies of their source HDD at particular points
of time.

But for most PC users (in my experience) the crucial need is for a *current
up-to-date* precise copy of their day-to-day working HDD where all
programs/data are immediately accessible and the recipient HDD containing
the cloned contents of the source HDD is potentially bootable - all without
the need for any restoration/recovery process. I believe that need is better
satisfied for most users through the Casper 4 program's capability of
creating incremental disk clones as I have described above & below.

But when all is said & done - as the saying goes..."Yer pays yer money and
yer takes yer cherce."
Anna

 

[Bill in Co.]

OK, and thanks for answering this, and I'm only still confused about one
thing here still (I think).

When you say Casper creates an incremental clone that does not need
restoring, and then you go on to say this is fine IF you don't need a
generational copy, are you implying that the cloned incremental copy (of
files and directories) does, or does not, retain the original source
directories date and time stamps?

Obviously most users wouldn't care, but I'm just asking for clarification.
Theoretically, a "clone" (or so I've been told) means a perfect copy (i.e.,
at the sector-sector level, NOT the file copying level), thereby retaining
and preserving the original source drive directory date and time stamps.

(Again: I'm not talking about the FILE date time stamps here, which
undoubtedly are preserved, but I am talking about all the directory (and
subdirectory) date-time stamps.

 

[Anna]

Bill:
Yes, the cloned HDD (incremental or otherwise) does "retain the original source directories date and time stamps."

Yes. For all practical purposes, the cloned HDD "means a perfect copy" of the source HDD. Compared on a side-by-side basis there would be no difference between the source HDD or the "destination" HDD (the recipient of the clone).
Anna

OK, and thanks for answering this, and I'm only still confused about one
thing here still (I think).

When you say Casper creates an incremental clone that does not need
restoring, and then you go on to say this is fine IF you don't need a
generational copy, are you implying that the cloned incremental copy (of
files and directories) does, or does not, retain the original source
directories date and time stamps?

Obviously most users wouldn't care, but I'm just asking for clarification.
Theoretically, a "clone" (or so I've been told) means a perfect copy (i.e.,
at the sector-sector level, NOT the file copying level), thereby retaining
and preserving the original source drive directory date and time stamps.

(Again: I'm not talking about the FILE date time stamps here, which
undoubtedly are preserved, but I am talking about all the directory (and
subdirectory) date-time stamps.

 

[Bill in Co.]

OK, thanks for the info on this, Anna.
Bill
Bill:
Yes, the cloned HDD (incremental or otherwise) does "retain the original source directories date and time stamps."

Yes. For all practical purposes, the cloned HDD "means a perfect copy" of the source HDD. Compared on a side-by-side basis there would be no difference between the source HDD or the "destination" HDD (the recipient of the clone).
Anna

OK, and thanks for answering this, and I'm only still confused about one
thing here still (I think).

When you say Casper creates an incremental clone that does not need
restoring, and then you go on to say this is fine IF you don't need a
generational copy, are you implying that the cloned incremental copy (of
files and directories) does, or does not, retain the original source
directories date and time stamps?

Obviously most users wouldn't care, but I'm just asking for clarification.
Theoretically, a "clone" (or so I've been told) means a perfect copy (i.e.,
at the sector-sector level, NOT the file copying level), thereby retaining
and preserving the original source drive directory date and time stamps.

(Again: I'm not talking about the FILE date time stamps here, which
undoubtedly are preserved, but I am talking about all the directory (and
subdirectory) date-time stamps.